Gay marriage in NY?

[eL FryEdo]

It seems like they're going to trying passing this legislation again :rolleyes: but I was curious how many people on this board are for or against this on NCC. I saw a poll on a newspaper website that had it at 60/40 against gay marriage in NY im sure it will be in favor for it on here though. I for one don't give a fuck ... plus cant they be taxed for that shit or do they receive tax breaks :hmmm either way i dont see how it should it matter to anyone besides the religious nuts.

[.laurenx.]

for it. let them live already.

[DJ Becka]

Exactly.....I don't see why this is such a big deal.....they aren't hurting anyone....live and let live, I say.

[eL FryEdo]

i think its more so the religious fanatics who have gay people already being sentenced to eternal damnation lol

[jameznyhc]

for it. let them live already.


they can live .. its called a civil union .. i dont think gays should be denied any right or benefit or privlige of a married couple they deserve it all .. what they should be given is the right to change the institution of marriage and shove their values down my throat .. as i would not shove my values down the gay communitys throat .. ..i say let the people decide .. if the majority of ny'ers vote for gay marriage then so be it .. but 30 states have had it on the ballot and even the most liberal states like Mass and Cali decided marriage is an institution between a man and a woman .. the problem is when 7 judges overturn the voters decision ..

[eL FryEdo]

they can live .. its called a civil union .. i dont think gays should be denied any right or benefit or privlige of a married couple they deserve it all .. what they should be given is the right to change the institution of marriage and shove their values down my throat .. as i would not shove my values down the gay communitys throat .. ..i say let the people decide .. if the majority of ny'ers vote for gay marriage then so be it .. but 30 states have had it on the ballot and even the most liberal states like Mass and Cali decided marriage is an institution between a man and a woman .. the problem is when 7 judges overturn the voters decision ..

does a civil union reap every one of the benefits and drawbacks that a marriage does though?

[.laurenx.]

they can live .. its called a civil union .. i dont think gays should be denied any right or benefit or privlige of a married couple they deserve it all .. what they should be given is the right to change the institution of marriage and shove their values down my throat .. as i would not shove my values down the gay communitys throat .. ..i say let the people decide .. if the majority of ny'ers vote for gay marriage then so be it .. but 30 states have had it on the ballot and even the most liberal states like Mass and Cali decided marriage is an institution between a man and a woman .. the problem is when 7 judges overturn the voters decision ..

blah blah blah i dont know why you're quoting me lol

i just want my uncle tommy and aunt bruce to be happy
jt05u6747

[jameznyhc]

i think its more so the religious fanatics who have gay people already being sentenced to eternal damnation lol

my decision is definitly not rooted in religion .. because im for states rights and if NY'ers vote for it .. i can live with that .. i dont like what happened in Mass where judges overuled the americaN PEOPLE..

my argument is women and men are ddifferent ..biologically , hormonally, etc .. to say a same sex marriage is the same is false they cant produce life.. should they be denied benefits or rights? absolutly not.. does it make them "lesser" people? .. not at all .. but there certainly not equal in a scientific sense of a hetero couple

[jameznyhc]

blah blah blah i dont know why you're quoting me lol

i just want my uncle tommy and aunt bruce to be happy
jt05u6747

why wouldnt they be happy with a civil union?..i thought the fight was about giving gay people the rights and benefits of married couples ? which they totally deserve ..they dont deserve to change an instiution just to make them happy ..

[.laurenx.]

why wouldnt they be happy with a civil union?..i thought the fight was about giving gay people the rights and benefits of married couples ? which they totally deserve ..they dont deserve to change an instiution just to make them happy ..

wtf? please tell me where i said they wouldnt be happy with a civil union.relax.


but for all i care, they can change the instituion of marriage. do whatever the hell u want. no sweat off my back.

[jameznyhc]

wtf? please tell me where i said they wouldnt be happy with a civil union.relax.


but for all i care, they can change the instituion of marriage. do whatever the hell u want. no sweat off my back.

no sweat off your back cause you dont care about preserving the institution .. which is fine ..like i said if people vote for it im fine with it ..

[jameznyhc]

does a civil union reap every one of the benefits and drawbacks that a marriage does though?

yes except child tax credits ..unless they adopt which im fine with.. better than a foster home .. but that would be one drawback ..

one advantage is when men and women divorce ..now matter how little the man earns he must pay child support and women 9 out of 10 times is awarded custody .. a civil union it would probally be a 50/ 50 split

if a broke gay guy married a loaded gay guy or women to women ..it would probally be fairer.. that would be an adavantage .. i doubt a judge is gonna award a broke gay man who sits home all day the same awards a stay at home mom does raising a family .. raising children hard fuckin work .

[chris817]

no sweat off your back cause you dont care about preserving the institution .. which is fine ..like i said if people vote for it im fine with it ..

preserving the institution..lol i think thats long gone
divorce rate is sky high, tv shows like who wants to marry a millionaire, bachelor and the rest of them do wonders for that institution
but i do agree this should be decided by the states and if the people pass the law then so be it. NOT some judge overturning the people's will

[jameznyhc]

preserving the institution..lol i think thats long gone
divorce rate is sky high, tv shows like who wants to marry a millionaire, bachelor and the rest of them do wonders for that institution
but i do agree this should be decided by the states and if the people pass the law then so be it. NOT some judge overturning the people's will

ok so then it would bother you if everyone in your familys marriage was dissolved .. thats fine ..im not a fan of who wants to marry a abtchelor ..i feel shit like that is pathetic .. it totally cheapens marriage as much as an arranged marriage in some customs ..it totally helps destroy the institution .

if you think children dont mind when there parents divorce and dissolve their marriage your crazy they pay the highest price .. some parents sacrifice their selfishness and stay together for childrens sake until their adults and then divoirce ..thats how badly we know it hurts the kids

let the people decide ..one other thing i would say people value marriage even more today .. 18 and 19 yr olds getting hitched cause "its the thing to do" cheapened the instittuion led to massive divorce rates .. today people wait until their much much older .. i think today people respect the institution a hell of alot more thats why they are so careful and wait until there more mature..to avoid divorce

[chris817]

ok so then it would bother you if everyone in your familys marriage was dissolved .. thats fine ..im not a fan of who wants to marry a abtchelor ..i feel shit like that is pathetic .. it totally cheapens marriage as much as an arranged marriage in some customs ..it totally helps destroy the institution .

if you think children dont mind when there parents divorce and dissolve their marriage your crazy they pay the highest price .. some parents sacrifice their selfishness and stay together for childrens sake until their adults and then divoirce ..thats how badly we know it hurts the kids

let the people decide ..one other thing i would say people value marriage even more today .. 18 and 19 yr olds getting hitched cause "its the thing to do" cheapened the instittuion led to massive divorce rates .. today people wait until their much much older .. i think today people respect the institution a hell of alot more thats why they are so careful and wait until there more mature..to avoid divorce

why would everyone in my families marriage dissolve? i dont get what your point is
of course children mind when their parents get divorced, again i dont know where your going with this. It also hurts the kids to see their parents in a loveless marriage. i dont know where your getting your stats on nowadays people wait for marriage.
Thanks for just wasting all of our time reading that

[.laurenx.]

if you think children dont mind when there parents divorce and dissolve their marriage your crazy they pay the highest price .. some parents sacrifice their selfishness and stay together for childrens sake until their adults and then divoirce ..thats how badly we know it hurts the kids



which is probably the most idiotic thing ever . so what, they stay together and are miserable and fight all the time just for the sake of staying together.yea thats real great for the kids.

please, my parents divorced when i was 11 and it was much better not having to hear them argue.

[jameznyhc]

why would everyone in my families marriage dissolve? i dont get what your point is
of course children mind when their parents get divorced, again i dont know where your going with this. It also hurts the kids to see their parents in a loveless marriage. i dont know where your getting your stats on nowadays people wait for marriage.
Thanks for just wasting all of our time reading that

i was responding to your statement that preserving the instition is gone .. you dont know where im getting my stats on people waiting till their older are you kidding me how many links you want??? ... in the late 60s the average age was 18 .. 22 was considered old .. you havent noticed a shift in people waiting longer?..the proof is in the stats and real life .. even in utah fuckin utah average age is 26 ..lol that was mad old 30 years ago

[jameznyhc]

which is probably the most idiotic thing ever . so what, they stay together and are miserable and fight all the time just for the sake of staying together.yea thats real great for the kids.

please, my parents divorced when i was 11 and it was much better not having to hear them argue.

well its a good thing at 11 you thought it was better they are divorcing .. most kids dont.. unless one of the parents are abusive .but arguing is a part of relationships ..but usually parents who do put off the divorce for their childrens sake will put the kids concerns above their own and try to make it a normal household .. of course physical abuse and constant mental abuse is bad for a kid ..

[.laurenx.]

well its a good thing at 11 you thought it was better they are divorcing .. most kids dont.. unless one of the parents are abusive .but arguing is a part of relationships ..but usually parents who do put off the divorce for their childrens sake will put the kids concerns above their own and try to make it a normal household .. of course physical abuse and constant mental abuse is bad for a kid ..
neither of mine were abusive and the divorce was civil. but at 11, all i thought was

2 birthdays > 1 birthday
2 christmases >1 christmas
2 bedrooms > 1 bedroom

:hitting

[Bekim...]

i think people that dont think this is such a big deal are crazy
I vote a big fat NO :disgusted

[chris817]

i was responding to your statement that preserving the instition is gone .. you dont know where im getting my stats on people waiting till their older are you kidding me how many links you want??? ... in the late 60s the average age was 18 .. 22 was considered old .. you havent noticed a shift in people waiting longer?..the proof is in the stats and real life .. even in utah fuckin utah average age is 26 ..lol that was mad old 30 years ago

preservation the instition being gone has nothing to do with disolving family members marriage, still unclear on your point
I got ya, they wait from 18 to 25.. Still young IMO and during the time you are stating from the late 60's to now the increase in divorce has increased significantly. So your point is they wait later to marry but still divorce. The higest rates are those under 20 to 29. The rate decreases significantly after the age of 30

[jameznyhc]

preservation the instition being gone has nothing to do with disolving family members marriage, still unclear on your point
I got ya, they wait from 18 to 25.. Still young IMO and during the time you are stating from the late 60's to now the increase in divorce has increased significantly. So your point is they wait later to marry but still divorce. The higest rates are those under 20 to 29. The rate decreases significantly after the age of 30

they wait until 25 - 26 in middle america utah is youngest at 26 .. ny average is 30 ..how many weddings have you attended between 18-25 for your peers here in ny .. i attended maaybe 3 lol..and bro i was certanily not the same person i was in my mid -late 20s as i was at 18 ..thats a huge difference

there a reason why 30 is the new 20

[chris817]

they wait until 25 - 26 in middle america utah is youngest at 26 .. ny average is 30 ..how many weddings have you attended between 18-25 for your peers here in ny .. i attended maaybe 3 lol..and bro i was certanily not the same person i was in my mid -late 20s as i was at 18 ..thats a huge difference

there a reason why 30 is the new 20

of course i completly agree with this statement. 30 here is young to get married, but to say in KY its old and your looked at differently. The weddings i have attended during that time period a high number have resulted in divorce. Some friends have already been married 2x and i have been to both weddings. U have grown up, some people act the same thru out their lives. Im 33 now and im completely different from my late 20's. I hope im different 10 yrs from now and so forth for the rest of my life.

[Speshl J]

why wouldnt they be happy with a civil union?..i thought the fight was about giving gay people the rights and benefits of married couples ? which they totally deserve ..they dont deserve to change an instiution just to make them happy ..

My question is this, what does "preserving the institution" have to do with anything. It's really a retarded argument, COMPLETELY based in religion. Why should we have two names for it and two separate sets of rules? Such a waste of time, resources and energy. What's the big fucking deal? Tell me one reason that will BENEFIT our nation to support allowing them to call it a marriage verse civil union. It's like a bunch of 8 year olds having an argument.

[LiTtLeE OnEe]

my decision is definitly not rooted in religion .. because im for states rights and if NY'ers vote for it .. i can live with that .. i dont like what happened in Mass where judges overuled the americaN PEOPLE..

my argument is women and men are ddifferent ..biologically , hormonally, etc .. to say a same sex marriage is the same is false they cant produce life.. should they be denied benefits or rights? absolutly not.. does it make them "lesser" people? .. not at all .. but there certainly not equal in a scientific sense of a hetero couple

ur saying that a same sex marriage isnt the same as a hetero marriage bc gays nd lesbians cant reproduce? wat about hetero couples that cant reproduce? is their marriage now less credible bc of this? does this make them less equal bc they aren't the same in a "scientific sense"?

yes, the institution of marriage is traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman, but thats only because when this was defined when there werent gay couples out in the open. our government and laws were structured so that they could change as time went on and things changed, so why is gay marriage any different? sometimes u have to move away from traditional views.

[just b u]

preserving the institution..lol i think thats long gone
divorce rate is sky high, tv shows like who wants to marry a millionaire, bachelor and the rest of them do wonders for that institution
but i do agree this should be decided by the states and if the people pass the law then so be it. NOT some judge overturning the people's will

exactly, the institution of marriage itself is already crumbling then why redefine it even more and broaden it to make it even more of a joke?

it shoudl be decided by the pple, that i agree with completely.

[Speshl J]

I'm really thinking gay's shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses. Isn't the institution of a driver based on the heterosexual person. Maybe they can get a gayer's license. Until then, keep them off the roads!

[eL FryEdo]

I'm really thinking gay's shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses. Isn't the institution of a driver based on the heterosexual person. Maybe they can get a gayer's license. Until then, keep them off the roads!

word ... i dont want them using my bathroom either ... i have to use a paper towel everytime i turn the doorknob for fear of getting gay on me

[just b u]

I'm really thinking gay's shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses. Isn't the institution of a driver based on the heterosexual person. Maybe they can get a gayer's license. Until then, keep them off the roads!

how are you comparing marriage to driving?!?!

this is what i mean by making a mockery of marriage. just because you dont believe that an institution should be changed bec of pple's sexual preference does not mean that you're against gays or are prejudice against them being in normal aspects of your life. and marriage is for procreation, religious purposes and for the society to continue to exist.

this has been discussed on here already :wallbang lol

[Speshl J]

how are you comparing marriage to driving?!?!

this is what i mean by making a mockery of marriage. just because you dont believe that an institution should be changed bec of pple's sexual preference does not mean that you're against gays or are prejudice against them being in normal aspects of your life. and marriage is for procreation, religious purposes and for the society to continue to exist.

this has been discussed on here already :wallbang lol
I would attempt to counter your argument, but you completely altered my point. My point is NOT accusing those against allowing gay marriage of bias. Your last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. 100% unconstitutional. All fine and dandy if churches/mosques/temples want to deny marriage on those grounds, but not our courts/government.

[Speshl J]

word ... i dont want them using my bathroom either ... i have to use a paper towel everytime i turn the doorknob for fear of getting gay on me I got the perfect SNL commercial spinoff for your comment. GAYNES (like Hanes), WAIT TIL WE GET OUR GAYNES ON YOU! lol

[eL FryEdo]

I got the perfect SNL commercial spinoff for your comment. GAYNES (like Hanes), WAIT TIL WE GET OUR GAYNES ON YOU! lol

:lol that would be a funny sketch ... probably alot better than what theyre putting out nowadays

[just b u]

I would attempt to counter your argument, but you completely altered my point. My point is NOT accusing those against allowing gay marriage of bias. Your last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. 100% unconstitutional. All fine and dandy if churches/mosques/temples want to deny marriage on those grounds, but not our courts/government.

No justing i didnt base my last sentence ONLY on religion. I also based it on procreation which is essential for a gov't, bec without any pple there aint a govt ya know. Give them all the legal benefits that heterosexual couples get, that's a civil union should be. otherwise let the pple decide.

but what was your point, i missed it i guess:hmmm

[HousemuzeeK]

No justing i didnt base my last sentence ONLY on religion. I also based it on procreation which is essential for a gov't, bec without any pple there aint a govt ya know. Give them all the legal benefits that heterosexual couples get, that's a civil union should be. otherwise let the pple decide.

but what was your point, i missed it i guess:hmmm

his point is that the religious aspect of marriage (which you cited above as one reason against gay marraige) may be an adequate basis for the religious institution itself to deny a marriage...but the state can not step in and deny a legal marriage on that same basis....the state treats marriage as a contract to which two adult consenting parties are bound and have legal obligations under...that's all the state government is concerned with...the state is not concerned with the religious aspect of marriage, so why should it now start asserting that as but one reason to deny a regular marriage to a gay person..? i just dont see how distinguishing between marriage and civil union serves any legitimate purpose from a governmental standpoint...a state only allowing gays "the next best thing" to a marriage ultimately works out to be a stigmatization of that group by the state, no matter which was you slice it...even if not intended to stigmatize, that's what it ultimately does..it classifies them as a completely different group subject to different rules because of how religion defines them...again, that's fine for a religious institution to say...but that's not a decision for a state to make....

and even if you parse out procreation from religion as you did above.... if we use that as a reason in itself for a state govt. to deny a gay marriage, it probably wouldn't hold....a state is not likely to deny someone the right to marry simply because they can't physically procreate...do you realize how many marriages that would obviate..?

in the eyes of the state, religion and procreation mean very little in a marital contract.....so it's not up to the state to now start asserting either of those elements as reasons to deny regular marriage to a gay couple....

[eL FryEdo]

No justing i didnt base my last sentence ONLY on religion. I also based it on procreation which is essential for a gov't, bec without any pple there aint a govt ya know. Give them all the legal benefits that heterosexual couples get, that's a civil union should be. otherwise let the pple decide.

but what was your point, i missed it i guess:hmmm

thats the worst argument you could possibly give. There are too many people as it is right now ... draining healthcare and welfare and costing the state and federal gov'ts more money then theyre worth ... why do you think they have free clinics and give away condoms? If that were the case the chinese would be the greatest gov't in the world and they wouldnt be limiting families to one child. The world is over populated if anything there needs to be restrictions on pro-creation.

[eL FryEdo]

his point is that the religious aspect of marriage (which you cited above as one reason against gay marraige) may be an adequate basis for the religious institution itself to deny a marriage...but the state can not step in and deny a legal marriage on that same basis....the state treats marriage as a contract to which two adult consenting parties are bound...that's all the state government is concerned with....i dont see how distinguishing between marriage and civil union serves any legitimate purpose from a governmental standpoint...a state only allowing gays "the next best thing" to a marriage ultimately works out to be a stigmatization of that group by the state, no matter which was you slice it...even if not intended to stigmatize, that's what it ultimately does..it classifies them as a completely different group subject to different rules because of how religion defines them...again, that's fine for a religious institution to say...but that's not for a decision for a state to make....

and even if you parse out procreation from religion as you did above.... if we use that as a reason in itself for a state govt. to deny a gay marriage, it probably wouldn't hold....a state is not likely to deny someone the right to marry simply because they can't physically procreate...do you realize how many marriages that would obviate..?

very good points on both 'zeek ... i didnt even think about the married couples that can't have babies due to medical problems ... are they suppose to get civil unions as well Just b U?

[jameznyhc]

ur saying that a same sex marriage isnt the same as a hetero marriage bc gays nd lesbians cant reproduce? wat about hetero couples that cant reproduce? is their marriage now less credible bc of this? does this make them less equal bc they aren't the same in a "scientific sense"?

yes, the institution of marriage is traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman, but thats only because when this was defined when there werent gay couples out in the open. our government and laws were structured so that they could change as time went on and things changed, so why is gay marriage any different? sometimes u have to move away from traditional views.

real simple .. a relation between a man and woman ..is not equal to a homosexual relationship .. sure you'll have hetero couples the very few who decide not to procreate and the few who can not have children for whatever medical reason ..

its nothing more than real facts .. im just in favor of a civil union ..they should have rights and benefits

but leave it up to the people

[jameznyhc]

very good points on both 'zeek ... i didnt even think about the married couples that can't have babies due to medical problems ... are they suppose to get civil unions as well Just b U?

of course not.. neither should thiose who choose not to procreate and start a family .. unless your saying there is no difference between men and women ..which would be insane

[jameznyhc]

his point is that the religious aspect of marriage (which you cited above as one reason against gay marraige) may be an adequate basis for the religious institution itself to deny a marriage...but the state can not step in and deny a legal marriage on that same basis....the state treats marriage as a contract to which two adult consenting parties are bound and have legal obligations under...that's all the state government is concerned with...the state is not concerned with the religious aspect of marriage, so why should it now start asserting that as but one reason to deny a regular marriage to a gay person..? i just dont see how distinguishing between marriage and civil union serves any legitimate purpose from a governmental standpoint...a state only allowing gays "the next best thing" to a marriage ultimately works out to be a stigmatization of that group by the state, no matter which was you slice it...even if not intended to stigmatize, that's what it ultimately does..it classifies them as a completely different group subject to different rules because of how religion defines them...again, that's fine for a religious institution to say...but that's not a decision for a state to make....

and even if you parse out procreation from religion as you did above.... if we use that as a reason in itself for a state govt. to deny a gay marriage, it probably wouldn't hold....a state is not likely to deny someone the right to marry simply because they can't physically procreate...do you realize how many marriages that would obviate..?

in the eyes of the state, religion and procreation mean very little in a marital contract.....so it's not up to the state to now start asserting either of those elements as reasons to deny regular marriage to a gay couple....

actually the states should not be enforcing this thru judges thats insanity .. it was on the ballot in 30 states ..everytime the majority of people voted against it .. didnt win in one state

[jameznyhc]

My question is this, what does "preserving the institution" have to do with anything. It's really a retarded argument, COMPLETELY based in religion. Why should we have two names for it and two separate sets of rules? Such a waste of time, resources and energy. What's the big fucking deal? Tell me one reason that will BENEFIT our nation to support allowing them to call it a marriage verse civil union. It's like a bunch of 8 year olds having an argument.

has nothing to do with religion .. you can get married by justice of the peace .. besides it should be left up to the voters .. tell me why its so important for SOME gays to push this upon the country.. against the will of the people ..times change if the younger generation accept it they vote for it .. no reason for judges to discredit the voters

[jameznyhc]

I'm really thinking gay's shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses. Isn't the institution of a driver based on the heterosexual person. Maybe they can get a gayer's license. Until then, keep them off the roads!

but a gay man can drive as well as a straight man .. a gay couple can not biologically start a family .. not that its a bad thing .. its life .. not everything is equal ..

[jameznyhc]

My question is this, what does "preserving the institution" have to do with anything. It's really a retarded argument, COMPLETELY based in religion. Why should we have two names for it and two separate sets of rules? Such a waste of time, resources and energy. What's the big fucking deal? Tell me one reason that will BENEFIT our nation to support allowing them to call it a marriage verse civil union. It's like a bunch of 8 year olds having an argument.

its a comprimise ..both gays and the religous should be respected .. no? .. civil union gives them the rights and benefits.. i thought thats what was important here

[eL FryEdo]

but a gay man can drive as well as a straight man .. a gay couple can not biologically start a family .. not that its a bad thing .. its life .. not everything is equal ..

what does rpocreating have to do with marriage nowadays? It's not like the old days when people would marry before they even had sex let alone had a baby ... nowadays bastards children are born more often than not and not every married couple has kids

[jameznyhc]

what does rpocreating have to do with marriage nowadays? It's not like the old days when people would marry before they even had sex let alone had a baby ... nowadays bastards children are born more often than not and not every married couple has kids

unfortunatly the prisons are filled with 80% single parent fatherless households .. now im not saying a woman with strong values and morals cant raise good healthy productive kids .. if you ever want to take a look at the left wing liberals war on family is the welfare state .. whether it was good intentions gone really bad ..the damage it did to african americans is mind boggling .. creating dependance on govt hurt that group more than any other because of white guilt for their mistreatment & oppression during slavery.. good hearted liberals believed they owed and were helping the black family .. the smart ones knew they could create the only ethnic group in America to vote 85% ..African Americans BEFORE the welfare state overwhelmingly grew up in 2 parent households and the majority were Republicans because of Lincoln freeing them .. the democrats owned the south literally owned it ..if you notice there been massive decline especially with violence even though there less discrimination, racism , etc ..

here another issue .. before the 80s ..you know who were rest room attendants?, fast food workers?, landscapers? non skilled labor? non union labor? .. it was AMERICANS ..today we have 20 million illegal immigrants doing all this work thats supposedly "beneath" americans .. why is unemployemt in the african american community the highest? ..ahead of them is American latinos .. then whites .. and the asians come in at number one for having the lowest rate of unemployment .. do you think the Asian family structure may contribute to that?? .. same with middle easterners very strong family values.. much more so than idiots who glorify unwed mothers .. does anyone ever question the reason newer immigrants have such strong work ethics?.. its all goes back to the family .. look at gay marriage dude its a total assault on the family .. do you really believe gays are not doing this to say fuck you to religion and family?? if they wanted rights and benefits they would be estatic with a civil union ..

[jameznyhc]

what does rpocreating have to do with marriage nowadays? It's not like the old days when people would marry before they even had sex let alone had a baby ... nowadays bastards children are born more often than not and not every married couple has kids

95% of married people do have children .. but thats not the entire issue .. a union between a man and a woman is not the same as a homosexual couple ..lets look at real life situation .. lets say your in a competition one team is male and female .. the other team is 2 men ..

if the competition requires say physical strength the male female team at a disadvantage .. not all but most men have more physical strength ...in this case the men would be at an advantage especially if they were chelsea boys the male / female team at a total disadvantage ...the reason a union between a man and woman is not comparable is that ability to create life .. a marriage also defines the words Husband and Wife.. in homosexual relationship either a husband or wife can not exist together .. will it be 2 husbands? i gues we will have to redfine that as well ..if we dont redfine husband and wife then the gay marriage still will not be equal .. you see what im saying .. its a different union .. no husband and no wife to me sounds like a partnership .. not a family .. what will we do erase them from the dictonary??

[.laurenx.]

95% of married people do have children .. but thats not the entire issue .. a union between a man and a woman is not the same as a homosexual couple ..lets look at real life situation .. lets say your in a competition one team is male and female .. the other team is 2 men ..

if the competition requires say physical strength the male female team at a disadvantage .. not all but most men have more physical strength ...in this case the men would be at an advantage especially if they were chelsea boys the male / female team at a total disadvantage ...the reason a union between a man and woman is not comparable is that ability to create life .. a marriage also defines the words Husband and Wife.. in homosexual relationship either a husband or wife can not exist together .. will it be 2 husbands? i gues we will have to redfine that as well ..if we dont redfine husband and wife then the gay marriage still will not be equal .. you see what im saying .. its a different union .. no husband and no wife to me sounds like a partnership .. not a family .. what will we do erase them from the dictonary??
so if a man got a sex change and married a man, you'd be cool with that, right? because you have a man and woman.

and if the dictionary is such a concern, u can relax, it's taken care of.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Main Entry:
Marriage
1. the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
2. the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
3. an intimate or close union

[LiTtLeE OnEe]

real simple .. a relation between a man and woman ..is not equal to a homosexual relationship .. sure you'll have hetero couples the very few who decide not to procreate and the few who can not have children for whatever medical reason ..

its nothing more than real facts .. im just in favor of a civil union ..they should have rights and benefits

but leave it up to the people

why is it not equal? do they love each other less? do they act differently than heterosexuals? does their relationship mean less bc its not between a man and a woman? isnt marriage about love and wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone, wether that be the opposite sex or not? i dont get this not equal thing

so i guess what ur saying is that if u dont plan on having children, or you cant have children, then you should have a civil union and be denied the right to get married. :giveup

gays can adopt just like heteros who cant bear children.

[LiTtLeE OnEe]

unfortunatly the prisons are filled with 80% single parent fatherless households .. now im not saying a woman with strong values and morals cant raise good healthy productive kids .. if you ever want to take a look at the left wing liberals war on family is the welfare state .. whether it was good intentions gone really bad ..the damage it did to african americans is mind boggling .. creating dependance on govt hurt that group more than any other because of white guilt for their mistreatment & oppression during slavery.. good hearted liberals believed they owed and were helping the black family .. the smart ones knew they could create the only ethnic group in America to vote 85% ..African Americans BEFORE the welfare state overwhelmingly grew up in 2 parent households and the majority were Republicans because of Lincoln freeing them .. the democrats owned the south literally owned it ..if you notice there been massive decline especially with violence even though there less discrimination, racism , etc ..

here another issue .. before the 80s ..you know who were rest room attendants?, fast food workers?, landscapers? non skilled labor? non union labor? .. it was AMERICANS ..today we have 20 million illegal immigrants doing all this work thats supposedly "beneath" americans .. why is unemployemt in the african american community the highest? ..ahead of them is American latinos .. then whites .. and the asians come in at number one for having the lowest rate of unemployment .. do you think the Asian family structure may contribute to that?? .. same with middle easterners very strong family values.. much more so than idiots who glorify unwed mothers .. does anyone ever question the reason newer immigrants have such strong work ethics?.. its all goes back to the family .. look at gay marriage dude its a total assault on the family .. do you really believe gays are not doing this to say fuck you to religion and family?? if they wanted rights and benefits they would be estatic with a civil union ..

u think gays want to get married just to be like fuck you religion? im sorry, but that is retarded. marriage is something that most people want to experience in life, gay or straight. its about sharing with ur family and friends that u want to be with someone for the rest of ur life. for a lot of people it is no longer about a particular religion.

why should gays be ecstatic with not being treated equally? wether that apply to marriage, the workplace, civil rights, etc.

if marriage was strictly in the church and nothing else, then i would agree with you that they should be happy with a civil union, but its not just the church, its the state too. and under the american constitution, all men are created equal. it doesnt say all men are created equal, unless they are gay, then they can't have the right to get married.

im sure u wouldnt appreciate it if someone told you, oh u cant get married, be happy with a civil union and deal with it just bc they didnt like ur particular lifestyle. for ie, wat if america didnt tolerate other religions? and they said okay ur jewish, ur not allowed to get married, u can have a civil union, so be happy that we are giving u that. im sure u wouldnt be in support of that

and once again, times change. a marriage can no longer be strictly defined as a union between a man and a woman.

[ITsALLaboutME]

u are the master littleone
* bows *

[ITsALLaboutME]

i think people that dont think this is such a big deal are crazy
I vote a big fat NO :disgusted
well i think that people that think it is a big deal are crazy, I vote a big fat YES. And a big fat NO to you're ignorance. :yipee

[just b u]

u think gays want to get married just to be like fuck you religion? im sorry, but that is retarded. marriage is something that most people want to experience in life, gay or straight. its about sharing with ur family and friends that u want to be with someone for the rest of ur life. for a lot of people it is no longer about a particular religion.

why should gays be ecstatic with not being treated equally? wether that apply to marriage, the workplace, civil rights, etc.

if marriage was strictly in the church and nothing else, then i would agree with you that they should be happy with a civil union, but its not just the church, its the state too. and under the american constitution, all men are created equal. it doesnt say all men are created equal, unless they are gay, then they can't have the right to get married.

im sure u wouldnt appreciate it if someone told you, oh u cant get married, be happy with a civil union and deal with it just bc they didnt like ur particular lifestyle. for ie, wat if america didnt tolerate other religions? and they said okay ur jewish, ur not allowed to get married, u can have a civil union, so be happy that we are giving u that. im sure u wouldnt be in support of that

and once again, times change. a marriage can no longer be strictly defined as a union between a man and a woman.
why the hell not lol

as stated before, if the PEOPLE vote for it then fine. but there are plenty of pple who disagree with it.

[just b u]

well i think that people that think it is a big deal are crazy, I vote a big fat YES. And a big fat NO to you're ignorance. :yipee
this is my point. i'm assuming you're gay and to you this isnt a big deal. then why redefine marriage?

if you are gay, tell me how many of your gay friends want to actually marry? most dont and dont lie, most dont. most gay men enjoy a promiscius (sp?) life or a life not tied down to one person. it just feels like homosexuals are just doing this to mock heterosexuals.

[ShaE]

exactly, the institution of marriage itself is already crumbling then why redefine it even more and broaden it to make it even more of a joke?

it shoudl be decided by the pple, that i agree with completely.
you didn't just compare gay marriage to divorce did you?

"broadening and redefining" something makes it a joke?

hey, why "broaden and redefine" voting laws to allow women to participate, making a "joke" of this country.

why? b/c it's wrong that they can't, and it's time somebody allowed them to.

they are citizens, taxpayers, JUST LIKE US.

[jameznyhc]

so if a man got a sex change and married a man, you'd be cool with that, right? because you have a man and woman.

and if the dictionary is such a concern, u can relax, it's taken care of.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Main Entry:
Marriage
1. the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
2. the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
3. an intimate or close union

oh i thought would make you a post op transexual .. i didnt know men could become women thru science .. when did this happen?? .. can the transexual procreate? nope not the way nature works .. no scientific cure for that one and there a reason for it

[ShaE]

real simple .. a relation between a man and woman ..is not equal to a homosexual relationship .. sure you'll have hetero couples the very few who decide not to procreate and the few who can not have children for whatever medical reason ..

its nothing more than real facts .. im just in favor of a civil union ..they should have rights and benefits

but leave it up to the people
separate, renamed, but equal i see.

that works out well lol

[ShaE]

it just feels like homosexuals are just doing this to mock heterosexuals.
tanya, you cannot possibly think the gay marriage movement is a ploy by the gay population to "mock" straight people lol

self centered, cmon.

[jameznyhc]

u think gays want to get married just to be like fuck you religion? im sorry, but that is retarded. marriage is something that most people want to experience in life, gay or straight. its about sharing with ur family and friends that u want to be with someone for the rest of ur life. for a lot of people it is no longer about a particular religion.

why should gays be ecstatic with not being treated equally? wether that apply to marriage, the workplace, civil rights, etc.

if marriage was strictly in the church and nothing else, then i would agree with you that they should be happy with a civil union, but its not just the church, its the state too. and under the american constitution, all men are created equal. it doesnt say all men are created equal, unless they are gay, then they can't have the right to get married.

im sure u wouldnt appreciate it if someone told you, oh u cant get married, be happy with a civil union and deal with it just bc they didnt like ur particular lifestyle. for ie, wat if america didnt tolerate other religions? and they said okay ur jewish, ur not allowed to get married, u can have a civil union, so be happy that we are giving u that. im sure u wouldnt be in support of that

and once again, times change. a marriage can no longer be strictly defined as a union between a man and a woman.

correct cause they demand to change the union and institution ... so its not about equality at all its about pushing their values to change the institution .. they do not give a fuck about peoples views .. if its equality they really wanted what would be different in legal terms, and the contract that different than a married couples? absolutly nothing .. unless we are going to chage the definiton of husband wife ..


lets say gay couples can marry guess what they still will not be is HUSBAND and WIFE .. so how will they ever be viewed as equal to a married couple ..so unless we erase husband and wife from the dictionary and we all agree to call each other PARTNERS .. do you see how insane it is for 2 men to say we are no different than a amn and a woman? .. thats why civil unions make sense.. your talking about jews?? what does your religous preference have to do with being born a male or female .. you are what you are you dont choose your sex .. if a man desires to be a woman he never can be .. he can become a transexual .. thats just nature .. a civil union will give the gay couple every right and benefit they deserve


you mentioned times are changing .. not yet gay marriage was defeated in 30 states .. in very liberal progressive states .. its not discrimination to point a homosexual couple and a man and a woman couple are the same ..

[ShaE]

pushing values? being gay isn't a value
being straight isn't a value.

if i get married, i'm not "pushing my straight values" on anyone
and if gays are allowed to be married, they're not "pushing gay values" on anybody.

christ almighty.

[jameznyhc]

tanya, you cannot possibly think the gay marriage movement is a ploy by the gay population to "mock" straight people lol

self centered, cmon.

sure it is .. why wouldnt they want all the rights and benefits and protection a civil union offers since it identical to married couples contract.. equal under the law .. but in nature men and women are differnt and that shae can never be chnged or life would cease to exist .. what discriminatory about realizing men and women can never change the sex they were born as either male or female ..nature will never permit it

[jameznyhc]

pushing values? being gay isn't a value
being straight isn't a value.

if i get married, i'm not "pushing my straight values" on anyone
and if gays are allowed to be married, they're not "pushing gay values" on anybody.

christ almighty.

they will never be husband and wife .. so why push it.. to change that very concept ..see now your saying a husband and wife is no longer the defintion of marriage .. but you might say but james heteros will still be husband and wife .. ill reply i understand that but homosexuals can never be defined as husband and wife ..lol

[jameznyhc]

tanya, you cannot possibly think the gay marriage movement is a ploy by the gay population to "mock" straight people lol

self centered, cmon.

well there demanding that marriage will no longer be defined as husband and wife .. why?

[jameznyhc]

why is it not equal? do they love each other less? do they act differently than heterosexuals? does their relationship mean less bc its not between a man and a woman? isnt marriage about love and wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone, wether that be the opposite sex or not? i dont get this not equal thing

so i guess what ur saying is that if u dont plan on having children, or you cant have children, then you should have a civil union and be denied the right to get married. :giveup

gays can adopt just like heteros who cant bear children.

ive addressed every question on here like twice do you have a reading comprehension problem ..im not being sarcastic i addressed every question you just asked like twice please re read the thread ..

why is it not equal ...because they can never be husband and wife .. even if they redfine marriage they still will not be husband and wife ... a husband and wife is what defines marriage correct? ..everything else is just semantics and a legal contract recognized by the state ..so my question to is if marriage is no longer defined as union between husband and wife what will it become?

you mentioned times are changing and if the majority if voters in new york state feel marriage needs to be redefined to include same sex couples that fine .i believe in states rights ..after all they can never change the fact that a hetero couple will still be defined as husband and wife .. they never will be .. so why try to be something your not ??

and why is it such a bad thing ?? to accept that you can not be a husaban and wife ..you will never be a mom and dad.. who can produce daughters and sons ..thats why its an assault on the family ..but why should gays feel thats a bad thing ..its just reality .. thats not discrimnation

then will it be offensive for heteros to refer to each other as husband and wife? once we redfine the institution .. after all whats the point of changing an instition ???

[ITsALLaboutME]

this is my point. i'm assuming you're gay and to you this isnt a big deal. then why redefine marriage?

if you are gay, tell me how many of your gay friends want to actually marry? most dont and dont lie, most dont. most gay men enjoy a promiscius (sp?) life or a life not tied down to one person. it just feels like homosexuals are just doing this to mock heterosexuals.
are you serious? yeah this equal rights thing umm yeah its all just a big mock thing....... please someone pass this girl a clue.:disappoin

[ITsALLaboutME]

jameznyhc just by reading you're countless post's jibjab makes my head spin cuz in the end you end up right where you started. you go in circles. you say the same thing over and over with a new twist to it to make it look fresh. you must be a republican im guessing. lol. btw like it or not you cant stop equality in the good ol USA still. :agree

[just b u]

are you serious? yeah this equal rights thing umm yeah its all just a big mock thing....... please someone pass this girl a clue.:disappoin
lolol didnt answer any of my questions, is it because you know i'm right in assessing the reasons and views of homosexuals and marriage.

[jameznyhc]

lolol didnt answer any of my questions, is it because you know i'm right in assessing the reasons and views of homosexuals and marriage.

thats when they start making remarks about us and our political leanings .. they have no answer

[ShaE]

lolol didnt answer any of my questions, is it because you know i'm right in assessing the reasons and views of homosexuals and marriage.
no tanya, you're not right, gays aren't pressing for the right to marry just to tick off straight people.

[ShaE]

thats when they start making remarks about us and our political leanings .. they have no answer
and the blacks just wanted civil rights to piss off whites.

and women just wanted the vote to tick off men.

and atheists just don't believe in god to piss off christians.

oh COME ON. gays want to marry b/c they're GAY and they want to be married like any other LOVING couple.

thinking people would go through this level of struggle just to "get under the skin" of others is ludicrous and self flattering for heteros really.

[jameznyhc]

[QUOTE]and the blacks just wanted civil rights to piss off whites.

and women just wanted the vote to tick off men.

in America we promote independant liberty and freedom how did that hurt the instition of democracy? after all the constition is based on being American not white or male so the constiton must apply .. thats why republican party under lincoln freed the slaves .... slavery hurt the institon of individual liberty and the constiton ..same with women .. thats why the republican party passed the civil rights act under johnson ..of course they deliverd .. indvidual liberty and freedom is what its all about ..but you never make people equal thats just life



oh COME ON. gays want to marry b/c they're GAY and they want to be married like any other LOVING couple.

they still wont be husband and wife even if they change to contract


thinking people would go through this level of struggle just to "get under the skin" of others is ludicrous and self flattering for heteros really.

im not sure what trying to accomplish because there not goin to be seen as husband and wife lol

[Bekim...]

well i think that people that think it is a big deal are crazy, I vote a big fat YES. And a big fat NO to you're ignorance. :yipee

no ignorance here I just think that they should not have the same rights, its not natural plain and simple, its not human either .

what next? with give humans the right to marry their fucking dogs? why NOT? people LOVE their fucking dogs, some even make sweet love to their animals, they are happy - should they have the right to marry and adopt children?" hey guys my dads italian and my mommy is a cockerspaniel" get the fuck outta here you're the ignorant one. I respect them but I dont think they should be treated the same sorry

[just b u]

no tanya, you're not right, gays aren't pressing for the right to marry just to tick off straight people.
thank you gay man lol i asked him very pointed questions about the majority of gays lifestyles, he ignored it.

[ShaE]

no ignorance here I just think that they should not have the same rights, its not natural plain and simple, its not human either .

what next? with give humans the right to marry their fucking dogs? why NOT? people LOVE their fucking dogs, some even make sweet love to their animals, they are happy - should they have the right to marry and adopt children?" hey guys my dads italian and my mommy is a cockerspaniel" get the fuck outta here you're the ignorant one. I respect them but I dont think they should be treated the same sorry
because allowing marriage to a different SPECIES is a little nuts. humans are humans. if one human wants to marry another human, fine. why do you feel like that's comparabile to beastiality?

[ShaE]

no ignorance here I just think that they should not have the same rights, its not natural plain and simple, its not human either .

what next? with give humans the right to marry their fucking dogs? why NOT? people LOVE their fucking dogs, some even make sweet love to their animals, they are happy - should they have the right to marry and adopt children?" hey guys my dads italian and my mommy is a cockerspaniel" get the fuck outta here you're the ignorant one. I respect them but I dont think they should be treated the same sorry
because allowing marriage to a different SPECIES is a little nuts. humans are humans. if one human wants to marry another human, fine. why do you feel like that's comparabile to beastiality? you wanna marry a goat, a goat can't consent lol

a human can choose to marry another human. it's ridiculous to me that people argue against gay marriage by saying "what's next, marrying animals?" it's insane.

they shouldn't be treated the same? on what basis? are they less of an american citizen or human than you merely b/c they are of a different sexual orientation?

[ShaE]

thank you gay man lol i asked him very pointed questions about the majority of gays lifestyles, he ignored it.
i dont need to be gay to know this isn't all a ruse merely to piss straight people off.

[Bekim...]

because allowing marriage to a different SPECIES is a little nuts. humans are humans. if one human wants to marry another human, fine. why do you feel like that's comparabile to beastiality? you wanna marry a goat, a goat can't consent lol

a human can choose to marry another human. it's ridiculous to me that people argue against gay marriage by saying "what's next, marrying animals?" it's insane.

they shouldn't be treated the same? on what basis? are they less of an american citizen or human than you merely b/c they are of a different sexual orientation?

well I think its insane to let them have equal rights 100%
they are not equal as far as marriage and having kids plain and simple.

[jameznyhc]

well I think its insane to let them have equal rights 100%
they are not equal as far as marriage and having kids plain and simple.

im not even against the 100% equal rights let them have it in a civil uniuon ..

any benefits married heteros get gay couples cant get anyway unless they adopt .. alot of tax credits for children

just leave the instition of marriage alone .. cause your right they are not equal ..

[Underwear Boy]

No mother fucker no

[just b u]

im not even against the 100% equal rights let them have it in a civil uniuon ..

any benefits married heteros get gay couples cant get anyway unless they adopt .. alot of tax credits for children

just leave the instition of marriage alone .. cause your right they are not equal ..
exactlyy

[just b u]

i dont need to be gay to know this isn't all a ruse merely to piss straight people off.

I didnt say to piss them off. I just stated that marriage is not something that most homosexuals want. to them it's not a big deal as this guy stated. all they want is equal rights and they should receive it in a civil union.

[eL FryEdo]

some uptight people on here

[ShaE]

well I think its insane to let them have equal rights 100%
they are not equal as far as marriage and having kids plain and simple.
but why is your right to marry dependent upon whether or not you can have kids?

should women that cannot bear kids be unable to marry also? what about sterile men?

[ShaE]

I didnt say to piss them off. I just stated that marriage is not something that most homosexuals want. to them it's not a big deal as this guy stated. all they want is equal rights and they should receive it in a civil union.
you said you think they're doing it to "mock" heterosexuals. i think that's highly presumptuous.

[jameznyhc]

you said you think they're doing it to "mock" heterosexuals. i think that's highly presumptuous.

well if you look at the footage they went ape shit after prop 8 was passed .. all their anger was directed at the church ,, funny how they didnt go to compton and pull that shit with the black churches ..so why target the church so aggressively and ruin ttheir services? .. and they absolutly mocked and harassed them .. one old lady ad a cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on ..

[jameznyhc]

but why is your right to marry dependent upon whether or not you can have kids?

should women that cannot bear kids be unable to marry also? what about sterile men?

they will still be recognized as husband and wife .. thats what a married couple is ..

[jameznyhc]

some uptight people on here

word .. if the people want to vote for it let them .. im all for states rights so my personal opinion only matters so much ..if the people vote for it they will get it .. thats the beauty of America

[eL FryEdo]

word .. if the people want to vote for it let them .. im all for states rights so my personal opinion only matters so much ..if the people vote for it they will get it .. thats the beauty of America

agreed

[Speshl J]

has nothing to do with religion .. you can get married by justice of the peace .. besides it should be left up to the voters .. tell me why its so important for SOME gays to push this upon the country.. against the will of the people ..times change if the younger generation accept it they vote for it .. no reason for judges to discredit the voters
you didn't answer my question. What is the significance in "preserving the institution." Again, I'm not really going to knock the voters, however even then there are times it's still wrong. I mean for a long time women and blacks did not have equal voting rights b/c the majority of people felt that way. Does that make it right?

[Speshl J]

this is my point. i'm assuming you're gay and to you this isnt a big deal. then why redefine marriage?

if you are gay, tell me how many of your gay friends want to actually marry? most dont and dont lie, most dont. most gay men enjoy a promiscius (sp?) life or a life not tied down to one person. it just feels like homosexuals are just doing this to mock heterosexuals.
I can't believe you'd actually say something like this. What are you basing your thinking on, a Calderone/Junior party at 2pm in the afternoon? let me analogize this for you so you can see how that sounds. Most Jews are cheap. I hate HATE HATE when people stereotype b/c it's a sign of ignorance. As a Jewish person, you'd think you'd know how it feels to be stereotyped. I certainly empathize with those subject to these kinds of classifications that are baseless.

[Speshl J]

its a comprimise ..both gays and the religous should be respected .. no? .. civil union gives them the rights and benefits.. i thought thats what was important here
ok then whenever ANYONE gets married by a justice of the peace it should be a civil union and when it's done in temple/church/mosque/teepee call it a marriage. I'm just saying there's no good argument here that's not based in religion.

[jameznyhc]

ok then whenever ANYONE gets married by a justice of the peace it should be a civil union and when it's done in temple/church/mosque/teepee call it a marriage. I'm just saying there's no good argument here that's not based in religion.

my argument is not based on religion .. if a gay couple do get the right to marry they wont be recognized as husband and wife .. only a hetero couple will .. correct? .. so what the sense? .. 2 men is not the same as a man and woman .. the instition will still be protected by natural law ..

as for balcks and women being denied voting rights was wrong

just as it would be wrong to deny gay couples the benefits and rights that married couples get .. thats why they should have civil unions .. equality for all ..

[Speshl J]

my argument is not based on religion .. if a gay couple do get the right to marry they wont be recognized as husband and wife .. only a hetero couple will .. correct? .. so what the sense? .. 2 men is not the same as a man and woman .. the instition will still be protected by natural law ..

as for balcks and women being denied voting rights was wrong

just as it would be wrong to deny gay couples the benefits and rights that married couples get .. thats why they should have civil unions .. equality for all ..

why can't they be wife and wife, husband and husband. oh and as far as institution, why not term women and black's voting rights something else, b/c historically, voting was something a white man could do and no one else. What happened to preserving that institution?

[jameznyhc]

why can't they be wife and wife, husband and husband. oh and as far as institution, why not term women and black's voting rights something else, b/c historically, voting was something a white man could do and no one else. What happened to preserving that institution?

they can be called husband and husband .. thats not equal to husband and wife .. and it never will be ..unless we stop idenitfying each other as female and male and say there no difference between men and women .. they still cant procreate .. or start a family .. be a mom and a dad .. why try to be something your not?

BUT if the people decide in new york state to pass gay marriage thats fine ..or you can push it while the majority are against it .. but i dont see how thats positive

i just want to know why to want to change the instituion .. why is'nt giving them the same rights and equality enough

when black voters and women voters got the right to vote they were still black and women .. they werent trying to be something they were not .. they just wanted the same rights

thats what a civil union does for gays .. why change marraige ?..

[Speshl J]

they can be called husband and husband .. thats not equal to husband and wife .. and it never will be ..unless we stop idenitfying each other as female and male and say there no difference between men and women .. they still cant procreate .. or start a family .. be a mom and a dad .. why try to be something your not?

BUT if the people decide in new york state to pass gay marriage thats fine ..or you can push it while the majority are against it .. but i dont see how thats positive

i just want to know why to want to change the instituion .. why is'nt giving them the same rights and equality enough

when black voters and women voters got the right to vote they were still black and women .. they werent trying to be something they were not .. they just wanted the same rights

thats what a civil union does for gays .. why change marraige ?..
but what's the significance of changing this institution. Just because something has been one way historically, isn't reason enough for us to say that this is how things should be.

[jameznyhc]

but what's the significance of changing this institution. Just because something has been one way historically, isn't reason enough for us to say that this is how things should be.


thats not my reasoning at all .. they will still not be defined as husband and wife .. they wont be equal

deeply religous people may have other reasons .. then you have gays who are dead set against this for their own reasons ..

there a safeguard against heteros who want to change the instituon to include family members, incestal relationships (yes they exist) pilgamy, etc .. yet people are very much against that so its definitly not an anti gay viewpoint

if you want to discuss the negatives of a society that does not respect the instition of marriage and familys just look at single parent homes, adulterous homes, fatherless homes .. all have a big negative effect .. do yuou ever woinder why 80% of inmates comes from a broken family .. why welfare destroyed the african american community?.. we rewarded out of wedlock mothers .. the results were disastourus

[Speshl J]

if you want to discuss the negatives of a society that does not respect the instition of marriage and familys just look at single parent homes, adulterous homes, fatherless homes .. all have a big negative effect .. do yuou ever woinder why 80% of inmates comes from a broken family .. why welfare destroyed the african american community?.. we rewarded out of wedlock mothers .. the results were disastourus and this relates to giving gay's marriages because???? It's a stretch at best. Should we then not allow people to separate or divorce unless dire circumstances exist?

[just b u]

I can't believe you'd actually say something like this. What are you basing your thinking on, a Calderone/Junior party at 2pm in the afternoon? let me analogize this for you so you can see how that sounds. Most Jews are cheap. I hate HATE HATE when people stereotype b/c it's a sign of ignorance. As a Jewish person, you'd think you'd know how it feels to be stereotyped. I certainly empathize with those subject to these kinds of classifications that are baseless.

How is this the same? I'm not saying not to give them equal rights. I'm for that. I respect homosexuals, i dont think that this is their choice, i believe most are born like this and as a society we must be accepting of them. I believe in civil unions giving them all the legal rights that heterosexuals couples get.

But again my personal opinion is that the marriage as an institution should be not be changed. once you open and redefine it, whats to stop the redefining to polygomy, incest, beastiality etc. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise kids and the best for our society. Pple as is are not taking marriage seriously, open up the definition of marriage and it will not stop and bring more of a mockery to it.

[jameznyhc]

and this relates to giving gay's marriages because???? It's a stretch at best. Should we then not allow people to separate or divorce unless dire circumstances exist?

im just pointing out we have safeguards against heteros trying to change it as well .. as for divorce and seperation people have the right .. even if the results are bad for society you cant control people

i also feel the same way about prostition, gambling, and drugs ..adults should be allowed to decide for themselves their vice without loosing their freedom ..

let me ask you should we legalize sharia law here in this country if a married couple arrive from a muslim country? if not why?? because sharia and democracy can not co-exist .. but they are debating this in britain ..

[Defekted]

Its a black mark on this city that we dont have this already, fucking Iowa and MA have it but not us.... its pathetic for such a great city (the greatest city) to still have this backwards thinking. Its bigotry at its purest form.

[Defekted]

once you open and redefine it, whats to stop the redefining to polygomy, incest, beastiality etc..

Your approach in thinking about this topic is wrong from the get go because you are implying that homosexual marriage is a step in the direction to man and horse or father and daughter...... when in reality it should be equal to any other two consenting adults (regardless of sex).

[jameznyhc]

Your approach in thinking about this topic is wrong from the get go because you are implying that homosexual marriage is a step in the direction to man and horse or father and daughter...... when in reality it should be equal to any other two consenting adults (regardless of sex).

and 2 consenting adults can include incestial reltionships ..cousins, bro and sister.. etc they do exist

[jameznyhc]

Its a black mark on this city that we dont have this already, fucking Iowa and MA have it but not us.... its pathetic for such a great city (the greatest city) to still have this backwards thinking. Its bigotry at its purest form.

it being forced upon MA and Iowa by judges overturning democratic process and shoving their values down the peoples throat .. if ny and mass are progressive enough where the voters agree to legalize it .. they ill be all for it

the evangelicals want a fedral ban .. that is unconstitional as what these state judges are doing .. i dont support a fedral ban.. and i dont support state judge shaping social policy against the will of the people

[just b u]

Your approach in thinking about this topic is wrong from the get go because you are implying that homosexual marriage is a step in the direction to man and horse or father and daughter...... when in reality it should be equal to any other two consenting adults (regardless of sex).

one of the examples, incest, is consent of two adults, doesnt mean its right. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman not just 2 consenting individuals. a couple made up of a man and a man is not EQUAL to man and woman.

[jameznyhc]

one of the examples, incest, is consent of two adults, doesnt mean its right. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman not just 2 consenting individuals. a couple made up of a man and a man is not EQUAL to man and woman.

great point !

[eL FryEdo]

one of the examples, incest, is consent of two adults, doesnt mean its right. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman not just 2 consenting individuals. a couple made up of a man and a man is not EQUAL to man and woman.

lol so your saying a hetero couple is greater than a gay couple ... while theyre not the same to say one is better than the other is very ignorant to say the least

[jameznyhc]

lol so your saying a hetero couple is greater than a gay couple ... while theyre not the same to say one is better than the other is very ignorant to say the least

she didnt say that all she said they are not equal .. why do men and women do not compete agaisnt each other is sports? .. why cant a women make the NFL? .. because she is not equal the man does have a advantage

[eL FryEdo]

she didnt say that all she said they are not equal .. why do men and women do not compete agaisnt each other is sports? .. why cant a women make the NFL? .. because she is not equal the man does have a advantage

so with that analoagy then relationships should go like this

man + man > man + woman > woman + woman


:chuckle



by saying that theyre not equal she was implying that a hetero couple is more important

[Speshl J]

whats to stop the redefining to polygomy, incest, beastiality etc. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise kids and the best for our society. Pple as is are not taking marriage seriously, open up the definition of marriage and it will not stop and bring more of a mockery to it.
there are laws against all of those, which don't stop it already. Changing the definition of marriage will not affect them either way. They're going to happen one way or another. Sickos are sickos.

[jameznyhc]

so with that analoagy then relationships should go like this

man + man > man + woman > woman + woman


:chuckle



by saying that theyre not equal she was implying that a hetero couple is more important

thats true or else life would cease to exist .. thats why in natures law homosexuality is an abbreation .. the other way around the results wopuld be disastourus

[jameznyhc]

there are laws against all of those, which don't stop it already. Changing the definition of marriage will not affect them either way. They're going to happen one way or another. Sickos are sickos.

but why are they sickos? they are 2 consenting adults in a sexual relationship .. why deny them if you open it too homosexuals? ..isnt that what the argument 2 consenting adults in a sexual relationship?

[eL FryEdo]

babies will be born in test tubes eventually anyway

[eL FryEdo]

but why are they sickos? they are 2 consenting adults in a sexual relationship .. why deny them if you open it too homosexuals? ..isnt that what the argument 2 consenting adults in a sexual relationship?

incest breeds retards ... gays dont

[Speshl J]

one of the examples, incest, is consent of two adults, doesnt mean its right. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman not just 2 consenting individuals. a couple made up of a man and a man is not EQUAL to man and woman. incest does not always imply consent, FYI, infact most incestual relationships involve one party usually incapable of consent. Again why should the ability to procreate define a marriage, b/c that's the biggest difference. What detriment will come from allowing gay marriages? Clearly the "institution" is pretty fucked up as it is, this surely wouldn't change things as they are.

[jameznyhc]

incest breeds retards ... gays dont

why do you think that is ? something to do with natural law? ..

[jameznyhc]

incest does not always imply consent, FYI, infact most incestual relationships involve one party usually incapable of consent. Again why should the ability to procreate define a marriage, b/c that's the biggest difference. What detriment will come from allowing gay marriages? Clearly the "institution" is pretty fucked up as it is, this surely wouldn't change things as they are.

thats certainly not the debate here .. in britain there are brothers and sisters fighting for the right i can get the link .. what your mentioning sounds like abuse/ molestation

now you may find that crazy .. but the point is europe is rejecting judeo-christian lifestyle and promoting the assault on family .. there brothers and sisters fuckin is no longer taboo .. thats the danger in secularism .. also the sharia debate in britain .. wjhy do you think muslims want sharia in britain? it has to do with the godless society there in maybe? they feel this will proytect them from secularisnm?

[eL FryEdo]

why do you think that is ? something to do with natural law? ..

im not a scientist idk

[jameznyhc]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-439288/Forbidden-love-brother-sister.html

[jameznyhc]

and justin i saw your comment about jews being steretyped .. you as jeew should realize how dangerous it is to let 7 judges decide the will of the people & morality .. do you really wanna go down that road in this country ..

[just b u]

incest does not always imply consent, FYI, infact most incestual relationships involve one party usually incapable of consent. Again why should the ability to procreate define a marriage, b/c that's the biggest difference. What detriment will come from allowing gay marriages? Clearly the "institution" is pretty fucked up as it is, this surely wouldn't change things as they are.

That's my point its deterriorating as is, why cause more changes, more disruptions to this institution?

Of course there are cases where incest is forced as well as when it isnt lol what is your point.

What detriment would just having civil union giving all the legal rights to homosexual unions cause gays?? Why isnt it enough. Marriage is between a woman and a man, main purpose of marriage is to create a family unit, to procreate, to create the best environment for children to be raised in, that will benefit our society and its future. Marriage is not just a legal paper, the problem is is that most think of it that way and easily throw away a marriage and get divorced.

[just b u]

I'd just like to add, that my view is NOT against homosexuals at all. My concern is for the marriage as an institution which i think must be upheld. so to keep on saying we're ignorant, intolerant of gays just because we believe strongly that marriage should be not be redefined and we're just defending the institution itself, is misconstruing what we're saying completely.

[eL FryEdo]

fuck it ... let the queers get married ... theyre gonna burn in hell for all of eternity anyway :rolleyes:

[just b u]

fuck it ... let the queers get married ... theyre gonna burn in hell for all of eternity anyway :rolleyes:
you really hate religion dont you lol

there were many other points brought up in this thread besides religion. I dont even think religion was stated as one of the primary objectives lol.

[just b u]

and with that, peace out :heythere

[ITsALLaboutME]

and 2 consenting adults can include incestial reltionships ..cousins, bro and sister.. etc they do exist
sooo go after those nuts. leave gay people the freak alone around geeeez. let them live!!!!!!! it's DOESNT EFFECT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!if so HOW????????????????:pullhair

[jameznyhc]

sooo go after those nuts. leave gay people the freak alone around geeeez. let them live!!!!!!! it's DOESNT EFFECT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!if so HOW????????????????:pullhair

it does effect me there trying to change an institution .. they dont want equal rights and benefits .. they wanna shove their values down our throats .. i dont go into gay clubs and mock them and throw condoms like the gays do to the churches ... why dont they leaves us alone?

besides my personal opinion can only matter so much .. if the people vote for it then the country ewill accept it .. diid you miss the part where i said i oppose a fed ban?

secondly why are you calling those other people nuts?

[ShaE]

the term "redefining" just scares the pants off of some of you huh?

[jameznyhc]

the term "redefining" just scares the pants off of some of you huh?

tolerance shae .. thats what its about .. protecting homosexuals with the same rights and benefits with civil union

and protecting the instition of marriage

it the extremists like the evangelicals who want a fed ban / and the extremist pro gays people who want to change the instition that are the problem

[ShaE]

protecting the institution of marriage?

why?

what is going to happen to marriage if gays are allowed to do it too? will your ability to marry be affected? will it tear apart marriage as you know it so you cannot have it yourself?

allowing gays to marry is not THREATENING marriage as "institution".

and you might note marriage has been shit on ALL OVER THE PLACE by divorce so the "institution" is nonexistent as is. go with the times buddy.

there are WORSE THINGS THAN CHANGE IN THIS WORLD. :rolleyes:

[ShaE]

god bless people that try to change institutions, most of them need changing.

[jameznyhc]

protecting the institution of marriage?

why?

what is going to happen to marriage if gays are allowed to do it too? will your ability to marry be affected? will it tear apart marriage as you know it so you cannot have it yourself?

allowing gays to marry is not THREATENING marriage as "institution".

and you might note marriage has been shit on ALL OVER THE PLACE by divorce so the "institution" is nonexistent as is. go with the times buddy.

there are WORSE THINGS THAN CHANGE IN THIS WORLD. :rolleyes:

but every state has voted against it .. by large majority in the most liberal areas as well

[jameznyhc]

god bless people that try to change institutions, most of them need changing.

until it affects you .. you give judges power like this what happens when they ban abortion? ..or make civil unions illegal? that can happen .. just as easily as liberal ideology is injected the exact opposite can happen .. why go down that road

[ITsALLaboutME]

Most of the arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are flawed and reactionary. They are reminiscent of the arguments against interracial marriages fifty years ago: that it will harm children, send the wrong moral message and devalue the institution of marriage.
Most Americans, perhaps with the exception a few in white robes, will agree that the ban on interracial marriages is nothing more than prejudice at work. Soon, we will look back at the arguments against same-sex marriages and see, like the ban on interracial marriages, that they are backed by nothing more than bigotry, prejudice and fear.:rolleyes:

[jameznyhc]

Most of the arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are flawed and reactionary. They are reminiscent of the arguments against interracial marriages fifty years ago: that it will harm children, send the wrong moral message and devalue the institution of marriage.
Most Americans, perhaps with the exception a few in white robes, will agree that the ban on interracial marriages is nothing more than prejudice at work. Soon, we will look back at the arguments against same-sex marriages and see, like the ban on interracial marriages, that they are backed by nothing more than bigotry, prejudice and fear.:rolleyes:

they certainly are not reactionary ..even if its changed like i said they can never be husband and wife like interacial marriage .. thats all

[ITsALLaboutME]

but every state has voted against it .. by large majority in the most liberal areas as well
seems people are comming around ^^::yipee


http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_has_gay_marriage_reached_a_tipping_point_in_new _york_poll_shows_majority_approve.html

[jameznyhc]

seems people are comming around ^^::yipee


http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_has_gay_marriage_reached_a_tipping_point_in_new _york_poll_shows_majority_approve.html

thats fine.. thats american .. im not opposed to states rights at all

[ITsALLaboutME]

oh how patriotic of you lol:yousuck

[ShaE]

until it affects you .. you give judges power like this what happens when they ban abortion? ..or make civil unions illegal? that can happen .. just as easily as liberal ideology is injected the exact opposite can happen .. why go down that road
i dont just support this b/c i feel it won't "affect" me, it's the principle. i feel it should happen, hopefully, one day it will. many groups have had to struggle for rights over time, women, minorities, the handicapped, homosexuals, you name it. change always comes.

[jameznyhc]

oh how patriotic of you lol:yousuck

the cost of living in a free society .. nobodys values should be shoved dow others throats and no judge should overturn the will of the voter .. i dont know why the gays in cali reacted the way they did too prop 8 ..only shows how much they hate the church and religion .. extremism is bad ..

[jameznyhc]

i dont just support this b/c i feel it won't "affect" me, it's the principle. i feel it should happen, hopefully, one day it will. many groups have had to struggle for rights over time, women, minorities, the handicapped, homosexuals, you name it. change always comes.

do you support the judges overturning the peoples votes?

[ShaE]

again jamez, being gay is not a value.
and if gays were to marry, that would not be shoving anything down anybody's throat.

i dont consider my heterosexuality a "value", nor am i ramming down anyone's throat if i walk into city hall and get married.

[ShaE]

do you support the judges overturning the peoples votes?
not really, no

[ShaE]

why dont the straight people focus more on their OWN marriages and keeping them together, get this divorce rate down, before they get all up in arms about what gay people are doing.

as if the heteros in this country have ANY AUTHORITY to speak on healthy marriages lol

that's an idea. look at the state of yourself before you criticize others.

[jameznyhc]

why dont the straight people focus more on their OWN marriages and keeping them together, get this divorce rate down, before they get all up in arms about what gay people are doing.

as if the heteros in this country have ANY AUTHORITY to speak on healthy marriages lol

that's an idea. look at the state of yourself before you criticize others.

the people who do have healthy marriage usually are church goers for whatever reason divorce is extremly low in that category .. but your right the 50% that do end in divorce create disastourous results for society as we see in the jails the vast majority 80-85% come from broken homes..

thats why the church is the most positive influence in the black community or they can take the other route and we see the results .

knowing myself i can only imagine the trouble i would have gotten in growing with no father to answer too .. that i know for a fact

[JenniFa]

blah blah blah i dont know why you're quoting me lol

i just want my uncle tommy and aunt bruce to be happy
jt05u6747

i literally just had water coming out of my nose :lol

[Benny B]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XMvviFbkf0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XMvviFbkf0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

i say listen to this broad :heart

[ITsALLaboutME]

lol miss california. yeah listen to her aparently u are benny lol now thats a mock

[jameznyhc]

was perez hilton a judge lol? ...

[Benny B]

lol miss california. yeah listen to her aparently u are benny lol now thats a mock

with broads like her there shoudnt be a gay guy on the planet.. lesbians sure.. but def not gay guys..

:chuckle

[JustLikeHeaven]

Lots of ignorant views in this thread but probably the most ridiculous was the assertion that homosexuals want to marry merely for purposes of mocking heterosexuals and the institution of marriage. How can you possibly come to a conclusion like that.

It's funny cause I was actually watching an episode of "Intervention" earlier and it was about a gay man whose struggle with his sexuality/acceptance of his sexuality lead him to major alcohol abuse. He expressed how upset it made him that no one truly recognized him and his partners' relationship (they had been together for 15 yrs) and how it is sad that he can't experience a marriage to his partner like hetero couples do...I don't know how you can assume that homosexual couples do not believe in monogamy and do not want to be able to experience being married to their partners the way hetero couples are able to. It def is not the same experience as a civil union and if that is what would make them happy, I don't see who you or anyone else is to deny them of it...

[Benny B]

Lots of ignorant views in this thread but probably the most ridiculous was the assertion that homosexuals want to marry merely for purposes of mocking heterosexuals and the institution of marriage. How can you possibly come to a conclusion like that.

It's funny cause I was actually watching an episode of "Intervention" earlier and it was about a gay man whose struggle with his sexuality/acceptance of his sexuality lead him to major alcohol abuse. He expressed how upset it made him that no one truly recognized him and his partners' relationship (they had been together for 15 yrs) and how it is sad that he can't experience a marriage to his partner like hetero couples do...I don't know how you can assume that homosexual couples do not believe in monogamy and do not want to be able to experience being married to their partners the way hetero couples are able to. It def is not the same experience as a civil union and if that is what would make them happy, I don't see who you or anyone else is to deny them of it...

why does anyone need to accept or recognize their relationship if its between themselves?

[jameznyhc]

Lots of ignorant views in this thread but probably the most ridiculous was the assertion that homosexuals want to marry merely for purposes of mocking heterosexuals and the institution of marriage. How can you possibly come to a conclusion like that.

It's funny cause I was actually watching an episode of "Intervention" earlier and it was about a gay man whose struggle with his sexuality/acceptance of his sexuality lead him to major alcohol abuse. He expressed how upset it made him that no one truly recognized him and his partners' relationship (they had been together for 15 yrs) and how it is sad that he can't experience a marriage to his partner like hetero couples do...I don't know how you can assume that homosexual couples do not believe in monogamy and do not want to be able to experience being married to their partners the way hetero couples are able to. It def is not the same experience as a civil union and if that is what would make them happy, I don't see who you or anyone else is to deny them of it...

the mocking part comes from descreating mass and church services .. whats up with that?

[ShaE]

Lots of ignorant views in this thread but probably the most ridiculous was the assertion that homosexuals want to marry merely for purposes of mocking heterosexuals and the institution of marriage. How can you possibly come to a conclusion like that.

It's funny cause I was actually watching an episode of "Intervention" earlier and it was about a gay man whose struggle with his sexuality/acceptance of his sexuality lead him to major alcohol abuse. He expressed how upset it made him that no one truly recognized him and his partners' relationship (they had been together for 15 yrs) and how it is sad that he can't experience a marriage to his partner like hetero couples do...I don't know how you can assume that homosexual couples do not believe in monogamy and do not want to be able to experience being married to their partners the way hetero couples are able to. It def is not the same experience as a civil union and if that is what would make them happy, I don't see who you or anyone else is to deny them of it...
telling somebody they have to settle for an union that's "just like, but not quite" marriage, is telling them they they're "almost as significant, but not quite" themselves. why should gay people be content with "civil unions"? it DOES mean something that it's called something different, that sends a message.

for example, if a man got promoted at my job to partner, and I got a promotion to partner, I get tons of new responsibilities, I get the higher salary, but they don't change my title. i'm not a partner, they call me something else. but everything about what i do, what i'm paid, what i'm entitled to, is the same.

"protecting the institution of the partnership" lol bullshit

should i care about why they won't call me a partner, but they will him, despite the fact I have the salary and the job? damn right i should, and I would. it MATTERS, especially when you DENY somebody.

[jameznyhc]

telling somebody they have to settle for an union that's "just like, but not quite" marriage, is telling them they they're "almost as significant, but not quite" themselves. why should gay people be content with "civil unions"? it DOES mean something that it's called something different, that sends a message.

for example, if a man got promoted at my job to partner, and I got a promotion to partner, I get tons of new responsibilities, I get the higher salary, but they don't change my title. i'm not a partner, they call me something else. but everything about what i do, what i'm paid, what i'm entitled to, is the same.

"protecting the institution of the partnership" lol bullshit

should i care about why they won't call me a partner, but they will him, despite the fact I have the salary and the job? damn right i should, and I would. it MATTERS, especially when you DENY somebody.

so then lets stop identifying people as female and male .. because they will never be recognized as husband and wife and thats what a married couple are ..since we going to say it no longer means husband and wife what shall the new term be?

[ShaE]

according to this theory blacks should've been content with whites "preserving the institution of segregation" and been happy to have all their own colored facilities. their own "versions" of the REAL things the whites had that were off limits to them. i mean, why get upset, your kids can still go to school, u have places to eat, churches, houses, etc.

and what did people say then? b/c blacks and whites WEREN'T EQUAL. odd, how often u hear that today.

[ShaE]

so then lets stop identifying people as female and male .. because they will never be recognized as husband and wife and thats what a married couple are ..since we going to say it no longer means husband and wife what shall the new term be?
spouse.

you marry your spouse, i use that term now.

[jameznyhc]

according to this theory blacks should've been content with whites "preserving the institution of segregation" and been happy to have all their own colored facilities. their own "versions" of the REAL things the whites had that were off limits to them. i mean, why get upset, your kids can still go to school, u have places to eat, churches, houses, etc.

and what did people say then? b/c blacks and whites WEREN'T EQUAL. odd, how often u hear that today.

race means nothing a interacial couple are still husabnd and wife

[jameznyhc]

spouse.

you marry your spouse, i use that term now.

so we should remove husband and wife .. do you think women and men will agree?..if they dont then what? lawsuits? .. and how would you identify the male or female?.. i dont see american women warming to the idea they are no longer o wife and no longer have a hubby as they like to say

[ShaE]

so we should remove husband and wife .. do you think women and men will agree?..if they dont then what? lawsuits? .. and how would you identify the male or female?
i dont think you have to "remove" anything, a man and woman can be called husband and wife, two men could be husband and husband, two women wife and wife, or all of them can be each others' spouses.

i think the couple could choose which term for each other they'd prefer, but it would be a marriage, and that term should be constant.

[jameznyhc]

i literally just had water coming out of my nose :lol

so jen congrats on the baby!.. now let me ask you would you be content no longer being a wife? or your man the husband? i mean if you redefine marriage you can no longer be husband and wife .. cause that would idenitfy you as a hetero couple .. the point to redfine is to make equal

[ShaE]

sometimes they say "man and wife" now, sometimes "husband and wife", doesn't matter. vows are changed around, etc, if it's a legal marriage, it's a marriage, regardless of the term you use for your spouse.

[ShaE]

the point to redfine is to make equal
no, the point to redefine is b/c of equality.

gay people are not unequal, and they will not be "made equal" to straight people if allowed to marry. they already are, they just need their RIGHTS to catch up to who they are.

women weren't "made equal" when they were given the vote, they already were equal, their rights had to be adjusted to REFLECT this equality, not create it.

i dont get this can't use the term husband and wife anymore bit jamez, of course you can. you can call your spouse what you like, you are married to them.

[jameznyhc]

i dont think you have to "remove" anything, a man and woman can be called husband and wife, two men could be husband and husband, two women wife and wife, or all of them can be each others' spouses.

i think the couple could choose which term for each other they'd prefer, but it would be a marriage, and that term should be constant.

but a married couple would still be indenitfied under the traditonal marriage as husband and wife ...homosexuals will not .. where the equality?..spouse is really the only solution this way everyone equal no?

[ShaE]

some women choose to take the husband's name, some do not, some hyphenate, etc. what the heck does any of this matter in terms of significance of the marriage? as if being called "wife" makes your marriage, and "spouse" wouldn't?

[ShaE]

but a married couple would still be indenitfied under the traditonal marriage as husband and wife ...homosexuals will not .. where the equality?..spouse is really the only solution this way everyone equal no?
i thought we were clear "traditional" marriage should change to include gay couples?
let them be husband and husband, or wife and wife, where's the problem?

the issue is not WHAT they call one another once they're married jamez, it's that they be allowed to marry.

[jameznyhc]

i thought we were clear "traditional" marriage should change to include gay couples?
let them be husband and husband, or wife and wife, where's the problem?

the issue is not WHAT they call one another once they're married jamez, it's that they be allowed to marry.

thats not equal there will be problems cause the hetero couple will still be defined differently and specifically apart from a homosexual marriage ...they will still be defined DIFFERENTLY

[ShaE]

thats not equal there will be problems cause the hetero couple will still be defined differently and specifically apart from a homosexual marriage ...they will still be defined DIFFERENTLY
being different doesn't change equality. i am equal to a man in the eyes of the law, but we are different. that's fine.

hetero couples can be different than homosexual couples, but legally they should both be allowed to marry.

[ShaE]

to say whites and blacks, or men and women, or people of all faiths are equal in america, is not saying they are all THE SAME WITHOUT DIFFERENCES. it means that in the eyes of the law, they are equal and enjoy the same rights as citizens.

you are seriously confusing similarity with equality.

[ITsALLaboutME]

great article about miss california .
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/21/jacobs_miss_usa_marriage/

[HousemuzeeK]

no, the point to redefine is b/c of equality.

gay people are not unequal, and they will not be "made equal" to straight people if allowed to marry. they already are, they just need their RIGHTS to catch up to who they are.

women weren't "made equal" when they were given the vote, they already were equal, their rights had to be adjusted to REFLECT this equality, not create it.

i dont get this can't use the term husband and wife anymore bit jamez, of course you can. you can call your spouse what you like, you are married to them.

excellent points

[jameznyhc]

to say whites and blacks, or men and women, or people of all faiths are equal in america, is not saying they are all THE SAME WITHOUT DIFFERENCES. it means that in the eyes of the law, they are equal and enjoy the same rights as citizens.

you are seriously confusing similarity with equality.

but they arent equal ..men and women dont compete in certain areas . . women tests must be watered down for them to make military and fire dept .. as we dicscussed before .. and homosexuals will never procreate and start familys thats just life .. women cant compete against men in physical strength .. get over it

[JustLikeHeaven]

why does anyone need to accept or recognize their relationship if its between themselves?

Because human beings by nature have a longing for acceptance and love of others, obviously. Don't act as if it makes them inferior because they desire to be accepted by others, especially their own family and friends. There is nothing wrong with that nor does it make their relationship any less significant.


being different doesn't change equality. i am equal to a man in the eyes of the law, but we are different. that's fine.

hetero couples can be different than homosexual couples, but legally they should both be allowed to marry.

EXACTLY. Jamez I have no clue why you are bringing up labels, they aren't upset about the title of man and wife, they are upset that they don't have equal rights to be allowed to marry their partner and experience having a wedding ceremony the way a hetero couple is allowed to do so. They can be different, they know they are - but that does not mean they have to be viewed as inferior in the eyes of the law. Allowing them to marry doesn't mean that any term associated with marriage needs to be amended, that's just retarded.

[jameznyhc]

Because human beings by nature have a longing for acceptance and love of others, obviously. Don't act as if it makes them inferior because they desire to be accepted by others, especially their own family and friends. There is nothing wrong with that nor does it make their relationship any less significant.



EXACTLY. Jamez I have no clue why you are bringing up labels, they aren't upset about the title of man and wife, they are upset that they don't have equal rights to be allowed to marry their partner and experience having a wedding ceremony the way a hetero couple is allowed to do so. They can be different, they know they are - but that does not mean they have to be viewed as inferior in the eyes of the law. Allowing them to marry doesn't mean that any term associated with marriage needs to be amended, that's just retarded.

if labels dont matter neither should the word marriage correct? ..so there have a civil union .. cause there is no difference except the LABEL ..when you say marriage no longer defines husband and wife you cant have it both ways

[JustLikeHeaven]

if labels dont matter neither should the word marriage correct? ..so there have a civil union .. cause there is no difference except the LABEL ..when you say marriage no longer defines husband and wife you can have it both ways

How is marriage the same as a label of man/husband and wife? One is an actually ceremony the other is merely a classification. ENTIRELY different.

[jameznyhc]

How is marriage the same as a label of man/husband and wife? One is an actually ceremony the other is merely a classification. ENTIRELY different.

you make it seem like a civil union is not a ceremony ?..it certainly is ..

[ShaE]

but they arent equal ..men and women dont compete in certain areas . . women tests must be watered down for them to make military and fire dept .. as we dicscussed before .. and homosexuals will never procreate and start familys thats just life .. women cant compete against men in physical strength .. get over it
get over what? i said we are equal in the eyes of the law jamez, i didn't say men and women are EQUALLY CAPABLE IN ALL THINGS, that's ridiculous.

you don't need to explain biology to me, and the differences between the sexes.

the differences are irrelevant when it comes to an american citizen's rights in his/her own country.

we absolutely DO have equality under the law, REGARDLESS of such differences, b/c equality is not contingent upon SIMILARITY or absence of difference.

[JustLikeHeaven]

you make it seem like a civil union is not a ceremony ?..it certainly is ..

Not like a marriage it certainly is not.
We know that separate will NEVER be equal. If hetero couples have the choice of having a civil union or a marriage, why should it be denied to homosexual couples??
And civil union is not a substitution for marriage...it is not even recognized from one state to the next. So how can you consider it equal to a marriage.

[ShaE]

if labels dont matter neither should the word marriage correct? ..so there have a civil union .. cause there is no difference except the LABEL ..when you say marriage no longer defines husband and wife you cant have it both ways
I think you need to justify why if you're performing the same ceremony, and offering the same benefits, you intend to call it something different merely b/c the participants are homosexual.

I don't think you should ASSUME it would be called something different, and then justify why it should be called the same.

Why create another name for an identical process of legally joining two consenting adults, citizens of this country?

Marriage can most certainly be husband and wife, nothing has to change there, there can just be two wives or two husbands if they please. A wife will still be her husband's wife, and he will still be her husband.

Honestly jamez, committment for life is what these people are talking about and legal rights, and you're fixated on what they call one another as if THAT'S what matters to them?

[jameznyhc]

Not like a marriage it certainly is not.
We know that separate will NEVER be equal. .

Civil union is not a ceremony.. explain?

and we know a homosexual couple cant procreate and become moms and dads so how are they equal?

[ShaE]

Just the fact that you've made it separate, makes it not equal.

Like my example explained before, if you give me the job responsibilities of a promotion, the pay, etc but refuse to give me the title of the position, you make up another one, telling me "oh it's the same thing, be happy",

i inherently know THERE IS A REASON you did not give me that title. i will most certainly not "just be happy" to have what i have.

[jameznyhc]

[QUOTE]I think you need to justify why if you're performing the same ceremony, and offering the same benefits, you intend to call it something different merely b/c the participants are homosexual.

simple one cermony is for same sex couples .. the other ceremony is for a husaband and wife .. the same sex couple cant be husband and wife so the wording will be completly different




Why create another name for an identical process of legally joining two consenting adults, citizens of this country?

because one is husband and wife .. the other is not .. we also dont recognize bro-sis marriage ..or cousins


Marriage can most certainly be husband and wife, nothing has to change there, there can just be two wives or two husbands if they please. A wife will still be her husband's wife, and he will still be her husband.

thats not equal ..what do we call a male- female marriage then?

[JustLikeHeaven]

Civil union is not a ceremony.. explain?

and we know a homosexual couple cant procreate and become moms and dads so how are they equal?

Yes it's a ceremony but it is not equal to a marriage...for one, as I said it is not even recognized from one state to the next. If they have a civil union in Vermont and move elsewhere, it won't be recognized. You don't understand that the whole idea of giving them a SEPARATE ceremony - (and even then one that is not accepted/recognized universally) - makes them unequal. Same as segregation as I think Shae said earlier.

Just bc they cannot procreate does not mean they should not be allowed to marry. So by your logic should couples that decide they don't want children then not be allowed to marry either?? One has nothing to do with the other.

[ShaE]

Civil union is not a ceremony.. explain?

and we know a homosexual couple cant procreate and become moms and dads so how are they equal?
marriage is not contingent upon birthing kids jamez. when you go to city hall you don't have to sign a contract that you'll procreate or else the state doesn't recognize your marriage.

ability to produce kids is irrelevant, a marriage is two adults becoming a single entity under the law, why can the two adults not be of the same sex? it's RIDICULOUS.

when a guy asks a girl to marry him he's not saying "will you have a kid", he's asking "will you be my partner for life" which may or may not involve kids. the "PARTNER FOR LIFE" part is what marriage is.

it should not be something only heterosexual people get to have, and it should not be renamed something else in order to be the "gay" version of marriage.

to use your own words, it's really quite simple: two, unrelated, consenting adults commit to each other for life. works fine.

no incest, no sheep screwing, no polygamy, none of that nonsense.

[jameznyhc]

Just the fact that you've made it separate, makes it not equal.

Like my example explained before, if you give me the job responsibilities of a promotion, the pay, etc but refuse to give me the title of the position, you make up another one, telling me "oh it's the same thing, be happy",

i inherently know THERE IS A REASON you did not give me that title. i will most certainly not "just be happy" to have what i have.

thats life an actress wont be an actor .. a waitress will not be a waiter ..

[jameznyhc]

[QUOTE]marriage is not contingent upon birthing kids jamez. when you go to city hall you don't have to sign a contract that you'll procreate or else the state doesn't recognize your marriage.



i never said marriage was cointigent on having kids .. .. all i said was homosexuals can not start familys ..therefor the relationship is nowhere near equal

[ShaE]

Just bc they cannot procreate does not mean they should not be allowed to marry. So by your logic should couples that decide they don't want children then not be allowed to marry either?? One has nothing to do with the other.
Apparently I can't get married lol

[jameznyhc]

secondly you cant tell incestrial couples no and homosexuals yes .. that would be unconstional and then that debate will happen just like it is in britain

[ShaE]

The relationship is equal in the sense that two people have chosen to be each others partners for the length of their lives. the commitment is the same, and that's the point.

whether or not they can have kids, irrelevant.

[jameznyhc]

Apparently I can't get married lol

you can get married and CHOOSE not have children .. homosexual dont have the option .. you do

[ShaE]

secondly you cant tell incestrial couples no and homosexuals yes .. that would be unconstional and then that debate will happen just like it is in britain
You absolutely can lol

incest is a crime.

homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

let that debate happen.

[ShaE]

you can get married and CHOOSE not have children .. homosexual dont have the option .. you do
what about women that can't have kids and know it? they cannot produce offspring, should they be able to marry?

[jameznyhc]

The relationship is equal in the sense that two people have chosen to be each others partners for the length of their lives. the commitment is the same, and that's the point.

whether or not they can have kids, irrelevant.

and so is a civil union and marriage equal in that 2 people are committed for life .. civil union offers that

[jameznyhc]

what about women that can't have kids and know it? they cannot produce offspring, should they be able to marry?

of course they should .. we are not talking about a specific women though .. we are talking hetero relationships vs gay ..

but that women will not be equal to a healthy woman who can give birth .. unfortunatly she has a defect ..

[JustLikeHeaven]

what about women that can't have kids and know it? they cannot produce offspring, should they be able to marry?

Exactly what my next question was going to be, lol.
Couples that can't make babies, by nature they obviously were not meant to reproduce and they will never be able to, so should they be denied the right to marry also??

[JustLikeHeaven]

of course they should .. we are not talking about a specific women though .. we are talking hetero relationships vs gay ..

but that women will not be equal to a healthy woman who can give birth .. unfortunatly she has a defect ..

So would you say that is a legitimate reason for her to be denied the right to get married ?

[jameznyhc]

Just bc they cannot procreate does not mean they should not be allowed to marry. So by your logic should couples that decide they don't want children then not be allowed to marry either?? One has nothing to do with the other.

but every married couple can have sex/ make love ..how do lesbians consumate their marriage.. for one if a man refuses or woman refuses to consumate the marriage can be annulled .. how can you consumate if you cant have sex?

[jameznyhc]

Exactly what my next question was going to be, lol.
Couples that can't make babies, by nature they obviously were not meant to reproduce and they will never be able to, so should they be denied the right to marry also??

they can still have sex ..

[JustLikeHeaven]

they can still have sex ..

Homosexual couples don't have sex lol???
You aren't making any sense. First you say they are not equal cause they can't have kids, now you're saying they are not equal cause they can't have sex. Lol...wtf
And you see these as legitimate reasons for them to not be allowed to get married ?

[jameznyhc]

Homosexual couples don't have sex lol???
You aren't making any sense. First you say they are not equal cause they can't have kids, now you're saying they are not equal cause they can't have sex. Lol...wtf

they cant consumate the marriage ..no if you have 2 people of the same sex .. how can 2 people of the same sex have sex?

they can perform sexual acts sure .. buts thats about it

NOWHERES NEAR EQUAL

[JustLikeHeaven]

they cant consumate the marriage ..no if you have 2 people of the same sex .. how can 2 people of the same sex have sex?

they can perform sexual acts sure .. buts thats about it

NOWHERES NEAR EQUAL

Omg really?
I can't believe you're seriously asking this question, lol. One of my closest friends is gay and he would SERIOUSLY beg to differ with this statement, lol.
I am not even gonna touch this one omg

[ShaE]

now they can't marry b/c they can't "consummate" it the way jamez feels it should be done lol

[GOLDEN]

talkin about gay marriage any1 see the miss america clip where perez hilton who was judge asked girl her views on gayu marriage and she said she believes it was between man and women....she came in 2nd...than perez called hera dumb bitch later...cmon now

[Defekted]

Dont worry.....we will show Jamez's kids in 30 years his posts and they will look at him with the same disgust that people now look at their own parents who took part in trying to promote segregation of whites and blacks in the south.

Some things takes days, some things take years.... but at the end of the day.....things change.

[Bekim...]

talkin about gay marriage any1 see the miss america clip where perez hilton who was judge asked girl her views on gayu marriage and she said she believes it was between man and women....she came in 2nd...than perez called hera dumb bitch later...cmon now

perez hilton should be thrown of a roof

[ITsALLaboutME]

talkin about gay marriage any1 see the miss america clip where perez hilton who was judge asked girl her views on gayu marriage and she said she believes it was between man and women....she came in 2nd...than perez called hera dumb bitch later...cmon now
whatever perez hilton will call ANYONE a dumb bitch please!! lol

[.laurenx.]

i literally just had water coming out of my nose :lol

lmao aunt bruce:heart he tore it upppp at my sweet 16. he had the waiters conga linging with maracas and sombreros

:hitting

[jameznyhc]

whatever perez hilton will call ANYONE a dumb bitch please!! lol

and the reacttion is she called him a faggot? pleaseeeeeeeeee

[jameznyhc]

Omg really?
I can't believe you're seriously asking this question, lol. One of my closest friends is gay and he would SERIOUSLY beg to differ with this statement, lol.
I am not even gonna touch this one omg

consumation is what seals the deal without it the the hetero can walk away with an annulment .. this will definitly have to be redefined as well.. since consum,ation is defined as sexual intercourse .. not oral and not anal .. so yeah were gonna have to change the entire instition ..its ridiculous but a realty if were gonna go there

its what makes the marriage legit ..without it it is not ..so yeah were gonna have to go there

[jameznyhc]

Dont worry.....we will show Jamez's kids in 30 years his posts and they will look at him with the same disgust that people now look at their own parents who took part in trying to promote segregation of whites and blacks in the south.

Some things takes days, some things take years.... but at the end of the day.....things change.

actually my viewpoint is way more tolerant than yours .. i want gays protected with a civil union so they get same rights and benefits as heteros

i want the religous protected by preserving the institution thats sacred to them

i want the traditonalists african american, hispanic and asian american family protected cause they were the ones who passed prop 8 .. im sure many muslims would agree with me .. and nobody should look at them with "disgust"

you hate religious and traditonal viewpoint .. i embrace all 3 .. thats real tolerance

[ShaE]

consumation is what seals the deal without it the the hetero can walk away with an annulment .. this will definitly have to be redefined as well.. since consum,ation is defined as sexual intercourse .. not oral and not anal .. so yeah were gonna have to change the entire instition ..its ridiculous but a realty if were gonna go there

its what makes the marriage legit ..without it it is not ..so yeah were gonna have to go there
actually, you can get an annulment regardless of whether you have or have not had sex.

[ShaE]

<TABLE class=c1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=content vAlign=top align=left width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%" bgColor=#cccccc height=1>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
annulment<SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--function openPopupWindow(targURL) { var version = parseInt(navigator.appVersion); if (version >= 4) var MyWin = window.open(targURL,'_new','height=500,width=700,s crollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=yes,menubar=yes '); }//--></SCRIPT>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=dottedline width="100%" height=1>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A court procedure that dissolves a marriage (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F701640A-83CF-4752-B667D60F2B5FE3B6) and treats it as if it never happened. Annulments are rare since the advent of no-fault divorce (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/711BAFC5-A36E-40FD-B897F16E720CD4F2) but may be obtained in most states for one of the following reasons: misrepresentation (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/2909ADDB-0878-4F5E-AC2D4E105E748EAD), concealment (for example, of an addiction or criminal record), misunderstanding (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/75BC468B-164D-46B7-9A512624D5A51D14) and refusal to consummate (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/D45E25C1-7608-42F5-9A4C389801EA421C) the marriage. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[ShaE]

actually my viewpoint is way more tolerant than yours .. i want gays protected with a civil union so they get same rights and benefits as heteros

i want the religous protected by preserving the institution thats sacred to them

i want the traditonalists african american, hispanic and asian american family protected cause they were the ones who passed prop 8 .. im sure many muslims would agree with me .. and nobody should look at them with "disgust"

you hate religious and traditonal viewpoint .. i embrace all 3 .. thats real tolerance
nobody is threatening the religious institution of marriage as it is defined by them.

they still decide who may marry in their churches, they still can perform the ceremony, they still can deny anyone they please, and they still set the terms.

what the LAW recognizes outside of churches is THEIR business.

nobody is changing anything about religious marriage. i honestly don't get how you don't grasp this.

[jameznyhc]

actually, you can get an annulment regardless of whether you have or have not had sex.

what does that have to do with consumatiion? ..of course if you get wasted like britney spears did and go to vegas on a whim you can get annulment ..

that has nothing to do with consumating the marriage and sexual intercourse ..which will need to be debated and legal contracts will have to be redrawn ..

[ShaE]

i'm not intolerant of religions wanting to define marriage their own way, go right ahead. i'm intolerant of RELIGIOUS PEOPLE opposing THE LAW DEFINING MARRIAGE A DIFFERENT WAY, based upon their RELIGIOUS convictions.

you keep your stuff in your house, and out of the public's. homosexuals aren't campaigning to get married in roman catholic churches, who's threatening them?

they can go about their business, gays want to marry under the jurisdiction of the law, not the pope or any other religious authority.

[jameznyhc]

nobody is threatening the religious institution of marriage as it is defined by them.

they still decide who may marry in their churches, they still can perform the ceremony, they still can deny anyone they please, and they still set the terms.

what the LAW recognizes outside of churches is THEIR business.

nobody is changing anything about religious marriage. i honestly don't get how you don't grasp this.

your redefining it ..there a reason traditonalists and religous have their view .. and you have yours ..

your an extremists you dont like the religous .. but i respect the fact your willing to let people decide ..

its the extremists on pro gay side who want judges to overturn voters rights in states where it was ddefeated

and the extremist evanhelicals who want a federal ban on gay marriage (thats unconstitiutional ) that are the problem ...people need to open their minds and be more tolerant ..

[ShaE]

i personally think women should be able to be priests & priests should be able to marry, but do you see me protesting and campaigning for that in catholic churches? no. why? b/c I AM NOT A PART OF THAT, that's their business and what they choose to live by in their faith is NOT MY PLACE TO SAY.

they have and can always have marriage as they see fit.

why then, are they so concerned, with what homosexuals can do in the eyes of the law? nobody's storming their churches demanding gay marriages be performed there & recognized. why not just let others be, you've got yours, they've got theirs.

[jameznyhc]

[QUOTE]i'm not intolerant of religions wanting to define marriage their own way, go right ahead. i'm intolerant of RELIGIOUS PEOPLE opposing THE LAW DEFINING MARRIAGE A DIFFERENT WAY, based upon their RELIGIOUS convictions.


dont worry there will not be a fed ban anytime soon .. let the people decide

[jameznyhc]

i personally think women should be able to be priests & priests should be able to marry, but do you see me protesting and campaigning for that in catholic churches? no. why? b/c I AM NOT A PART OF THAT, that's their business and what they choose to live by in their faith is NOT MY PLACE TO SAY.

they have and can always have marriage as they see fit.

why then, are they so concerned, with what homosexuals can do in the eyes of the law? nobody's storming their churches demanding gay marriages be performed there & recognized. why not just let others be, you've got yours, they've got theirs.

they arent they dont oppose civil unions..nor can they stop them ..

[ShaE]

I'm not intolerant of religion, i respect that it exists, but i wish those involved would respect it doesn't have to infiltrate the law. a man and woman can always get married as husband and wife in a church, nobody is trying to tell them they cannot. a faith has the right to set any restrictions it pleases within its own organization, but do not impose them on the public and the law.

do not say gays cannot legally marry b/c "god intended, bla bla", or b/c the "bible says", that's YOUR FAITH and it has its place, and that's in your church and in your personal life. it should not be what you impose on others when laws are being made.

[ShaE]

they arent they dont oppose civil unions..nor can they stop them ..
i mean they oppose gay marriage. i dont give a flying fuck about civil unions, they are inferior by mere definition, as i explained in my opinion earlier.

[jameznyhc]

i mean they oppose gay marriage. i dont give a flying fuck about civil unions, they are inferior by mere definition, as i explained in my opinion earlier.

you said the eyes of the law .. religous cant fuck with that ..they are not inferior when it comes to rights, laws and benfits there equal

[ShaE]

for example, i am not religious, we all know my views on it, if i were to vote on some hypothetical law that was to ban religion, i would vote AGAINST it. just b/c I do not share their values, or their beliefs, or their faith, and they drive me apeshit sometimes, does not mean I should allow my PERSONAL convictions and beliefs to influence the laws that govern the ENTIRE state/country.

i don't understand why religious people cannot be content with having marriage as a SACRAMENT within their faith, recognized by the law, remain EXACTLY as it is for them, and let homosexuals obtain LEGAL marriages, without any interference in their lives at all.

two gay people going to city hall to obtain a license and marriage IN NO WAY affects or threatens a straight couple's ability to do the same, or to pursue marriage in a church of their choosing in any traditional manner they please.

i don't see how anyone here is sacrificing anything, being deprived of anything, or having anything rammed down their throat. i see win-win-win all around.

[ShaE]

you said the eyes of the law .. religous cant fuck with that ..they are not inferior when it comes to rights, laws and benfits there equal
i explained to you that i felt even calling something by a different name, while claiming it is "the same", makes it innately inferior. scroll up and read, i explained it very clearly numerous times.

[jameznyhc]

[QUOTE]for example, i am not religious, we all know my views on it, if i were to vote on some hypothetical law that was to ban religion,



right nor am i in favor of a unconstitional FEDERAL ban .. leave it up to the states and people ..

[jameznyhc]

i explained to you that i felt even calling something by a different name, while claiming it is "the same", makes it innately inferior. scroll up and read, i explained it very clearly numerous times.

i know what you "felt" ..im talking about in the eyes of the law .. which is what you stated ..

all religous & tradtional people want is the definition not to be redefined ..

they feel if you cant consumate or procreate and cant start a family it shouldnt be the same as.. im done were going in circles .. when the voters pass it we'll live with it

[ITsALLaboutME]

i know what you "felt" ..im talking about in the eyes of the law .. which is what you stated ..

all religous & tradtional people want is the definition not to be redefined ..

they feel if you cant consumate or procreate and cant start a family it shouldnt be the same as.. im done were going in circles .. when the voters pass it we'll live with it
im glad you are done trying to speak for all religious and traditional people lol this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OR TRADITION IT HAS TO DO WITH BEING TREATED EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!why is that soooo hard to understand? you are the one going in circles jamyemz. shae knows what she is talking about and it just kills you doesnt it? get humble and get ready cuz weather u like it or not with the gay people or not.. the law will be passed and like i said later on in life when this is all done, we are gonna look back at this and think " why did we have such a problem with this " Traditional marriage ....there is no such thing nowadays . get over it .

[ITsALLaboutME]

and the reacttion is she called him a fa**ot? pleaseeeeeeeeee
that was uncalled for. just an excuse to be you're ignorant self. :booted

[Bekim...]

im glad you are done trying to speak for all religious and traditional people lol this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OR TRADITION IT HAS TO DO WITH BEING TREATED EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!why is that soooo hard to understand? you are the one going in circles jamyemz. shae knows what she is talking about and it just kills you doesnt it? get humble and get ready cuz weather u like it or not with the gay people or not.. the law will be passed and like i said later on in life when this is all done, we are gonna look back at this and think " why did we have such a problem with this " Traditional marriage ....there is no such thing nowadays . get over it .

but they'll never be 100% equal, not trying to be a dick its just a fact.
imagine kids growing up with 2 mommys or 2 daddys? I dont know but thats sick in my book sorry.

[ITsALLaboutME]

but they'll never be 100% equal, not trying to be a dick its just a fact.
imagine kids growing up with 2 mommys or 2 daddys? I dont know but thats sick in my book sorry.

IMAGINE IT? where have you been, under a rock? gay couples adopt childern all the time just cuz u dont see it doesnt mean it doesnt happen.:hmmm

[ITsALLaboutME]

just because in your book you feel a certain way does not mean that is the law of the land sorry to burst you're bubble. you have the right to you're opinion.... doesnt mean anything in the end

[ShaE]

yea b/c the way kids grow up now is 100% healthy lol

[eL FryEdo]

but they'll never be 100% equal, not trying to be a dick its just a fact.
imagine kids growing up with 2 mommys or 2 daddys? I dont know but thats sick in my book sorry.

whats so sick about that ... i think kids would be better off with two gay parents who love and care about them then if they had hetero parents that were abusive and/or negligent

[ShaE]

there's nothing sick about it, like no kid was ever raised by two aunts, or two other female relatives they both considered mother figures. i realize a marriage of two women raising a kid vs. a kid being raised by two related women is different but acting like just the EXPOSURE of a child to a household where it's not "man and wife +1 kid" = disaster is insane.

kids do best when they have people AROUND that love them and invest time in bringing them up. be it a relative, a single parent, a set of parents, a set of GAY parents. a kid cares way more about if you LOVE them than they do who you're sexually attracted to :rolleyes:

[ShaE]

kids are the most tolerant, accepting beings on the planet, until adults get their hands on them.

[Bekim...]

whats so sick about that ... i think kids would be better off with two gay parents who love and care about them then if they had hetero parents that were abusive and/or negligent

so you dont think having two gay fathers is sick?

[eL FryEdo]

so you dont think having two gay fathers is sick?

is it sicker to have a set of abusive parents in a hostile household or in a loving family with some gay dads is the real question ... i mean me personally would rahter not have two dads but if your raised in that enviroment then you wouldnt see anything wrong with it anyway

[ShaE]

is it sicker to have a set of abusive parents in a hostile household or in a loving family with some gay dads is the real question ... i mean me personally would rahter not have two dads but if your raised in that enviroment then you wouldnt see anything wrong with it anyway
exactly. nothing more sick and dysfunctional than unhappy parents being abusive to one another, raising kids.

kids are born straight or born gay, having gay parents won't make a bit of difference in the sexuality they develop.

happy parents= best kids, psychological fact.

[ITsALLaboutME]

D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/05/05/dc-council-votes-to-recognize-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages.html :heythere