General Mills opposes ban on equal marriage, angers anti-equality groups (Warba: house, live)

[trip_shakespeare]

I support gay marriage. Those who don't, I believe, will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history. Their children will be ashamed of them, and rightfully so.

kudos to General Mills.

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

I did not know there was such a thing as an anti-equality group of people. What are they about? Are they part of a movement that says we are better than the rest? Nothing wrong with that- I think if everything in the world was equal all movement would stop and the scale of justice would be seized up like a rusty clock..

There is no such thing in the universe as totally equal forces..Trying to achieve total equality within the human race is like turning a city into a cluster of human bacteria... There is nothing wrong with one being stronger than another- or one having more power than the other- we do not need more useless education regarding equality. We need to educate our people on the use and abuse of power- Abuse is the real issue- not some social engineering that is designed to rid the world of the bright and strong.

Oleg has a very valid and relevant point that's goes hand-in-hand with the another real issue: freedom.

I think marriage between homosexuals may be considered as falling under a person's inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you take the subjectively religious argument out of the equation, then what you have is two consenting adults who want to publicly show the world their love and devotion for one another through the act of marriage. A plain and simple concept that almost all of us can respect, if not relate to.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by phlinak

Oleg has a very valid and relevant point that's goes hand-in-hand with the another real issue: freedom.

I think marriage between homosexuals may be considered as falling under a person's inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you take the subjectively religious argument out of the equation, then what you have is two consenting adults who want to publicly show the world their love and devotion for one another through the act of marriage. A plain and simple concept that almost all of us can respect, if not relate to.

And that doesn't even get into the tax benefits, automatically being considered as covered dependants on health insurance, eligibility for housing and other benefits in the military for gay couples, etc. etc.

[Teak]

Originally Posted by phlinak

Oleg has a very valid and relevant point that's goes hand-in-hand with the another real issue: freedom.

I think marriage between homosexuals may be considered as falling under a person's inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you take the subjectively religious argument out of the equation, then what you have is two consenting adults who want to publicly show the world their love and devotion for one another through the act of marriage. A plain and simple concept that almost all of us can respect, if not relate to.

The "marriage" of two homosexuals has NOTHING to do with the pursuit of happiness and EVERYTHING to do with the pursuit of the tax and health-care benefits given to married couples. Homosexuals are free to marry now as it is, and free to live together, and have sex and pursue happiness, however that is defined.

Unfortunately, the many homosexuals that I have known are unhappy and nothing will change that. Legislate it all you like, but unhappiness is unhappiness and there is no getting around it.

Let the flaming begin....

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Teak

The "marriage" of two homosexuals has NOTHING to do with the pursuit of happiness and EVERYTHING to do with the pursuit of the tax and health-care benefits given to married couples. Homosexuals are free to marry now as it is, and free to live together, and have sex and pursue happiness, however that is defined.

Homosexuals are not free to marry each other right now in the state of Minnesota. What gave you the idea they were?

And for some, the "idea" of getting married far outweighs the tax benefits. Even with hetero couples.

[Teak]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Homosexuals are not free to marry each other right now in the state of Minnesota. What gave you the idea they were?

And for some, the "idea" of getting married far outweighs the tax benefits. Even with hetero couples.

You are wrong. Homosexuals are free to get married. It is when they want to pursue the tax and health-care benefits that they are held accountable for their choice in the state of Minnesota.

Giving homosexuals carte blanche on all of their demands will still not make them happy.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Teak

You are wrong. Homosexuals are free to get married. It is when they want to pursue the tax and health-care benefits that they are held accountable for their choice in the state of Minnesota.

Sounds like you're playing a semantic game to me.

Can a gay couple get married at a Justice of the Peace in the State of Minnesota?

[Teak]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Sounds like you're playing a semantic game to me.

Can a gay couple get married at a Justice of the Peace in the State of Minnesota?

A homosexual couple can go to a Metropolitan Community Church in Minnesota and get married. Why do they need the state to certify or register the marriage? Isn't that one of the things the homosexuals are always whining about: To keep the government out of their bedrooms?

Ah, gotcha on that one...

IMHO, the state has a strong and compelling argument not to register or certify aberrant behaviour.

[Teak]

Originally Posted by trip_shakespeare

I support gay marriage. Those who don't, I believe, will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history. Their children will be ashamed of them, and rightfully so.

kudos to General Mills.

Are you telling me that homosexuality is some new thing? Is it some new behaviour that is just recently being visited up modern mankind? I have a hard time believing anyone could be naive or ignorant enough to believe that.

Homosexual behaviour has probably been around nearly as long as mankind has existed upon the earth. There are historical accounts of homosexual behaviour existing in the Middle East (Sodom and Gomorrah) and Europe (Roman civilization). There are even ancient Chinese and Indian texts that allude to homosexual activity.

What is clear is that places where personal responsibility and a strong work ethic gave way to irresponsible behaviour and so-called progressive lifestyles lost their way and were defeated or subjugated by other nations. I can argue the reasons for this using either religious or evolutionary paradigms; take your pick.

[sholomar]

Live and let live. Regulating people's personal lives is stupid. If gays want to marry, more power to them. If people want to smoke pot, who cares. Silly republicans supposedly supporting more personal freedom. Only if it's their style of freedom... 1950's style where everything is a 'sin' because the old testament says so.

Libertarian FTW