[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

Fail? How about some simple reading comprehension?

Did YOU fail to comprehend that the "1 in 5" was what people THOUGHT was the number of gays. In other words, people were asked to GUESS.


If I was trying to hide something, I wouldn't have posted the link. As it is, I quoted just enough to be within the TOS, then gave you a link to the rest of the information.

Fail indeed.

You simply quoted what supported you're opinion. The margin for error was plus or minus 5 percent.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

You simply quoted what supported you're opinion. The margin for error was plus or minus 5 percent.

I quoted the first part of the article, then linked the entire article.

What, about that, are you unable to comprehend?


By the way, are you going to admit that you were COMPLETELY WRONG about what you THOUGHT the article was saying, regarding your "1 in 5" claim?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

Or... ya know maybe because they're gay. Just a thought really.


Yeah well we can't exactly do that. How unfair would that be to a woman if I married them but couldn't truly love them?

You've kind of been missing the point. Marriage is not, nor has it ever been about love, as far as the law is concerned. The law doesn't care who/what I love. To whine about it not being that is missing the point entirely.

Well being it exists in all life forms, in fact there is a species of only female lizards.

So does cannibalism, but we don't want to take our cue from nature on that, do we?

What if the entire population of Africa wanted something? Would we ignore them?


That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

How so? You're requesting a special exception be made for gay people to be married in a manner that is not open to hetero people. Basically, that's separate, but equal. They used that to justify segregation.

We're talking about two consenting adults. You're just being ridiculous even bringing in this argument.



Except you actually can change from pedophilia.

You're the one that stated you can't control yourself, not me. So now you can?

We aren't saying you can't go to this school Ms. Linda Brown. We're just saying you need to be white.

Let's talk apples to apples, shall we? Honestly, your stupid straw man arguments are kind of weak. I'm suggesting we base marriage on the same thing, regardless of personal choices or preferences. Not skin color.

I get it that you don't like that, and I get it that you want to feel validated in your lifestyle. But seriously...the idea of changing marriage or creating a new definition of it to suit a small minority is just crazy. That's just not the way we do things. What's next? Change the definition of drunk driving because an alcoholic just can't help himself?

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

How so? You're requesting a special exception be made for gay people to be married in a manner that is not open to hetero people. Basically, that's separate, but equal.

Heteros could use it if they wanted to for some bizzare reason. And the reasoning you're using is like saying instead of having black and white schools there would just be white schools. If someone black wanted to attend, they would have to become white. Segregation is like having marriage and civil unions, and then integration would be just plain marriage for two consenting adults of any gender.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

I quoted the first part of the article, then linked the entire article.

What, about that, are you unable to comprehend?


By the way, are you going to admit that you were COMPLETELY WRONG about what you THOUGHT the article was saying, regarding your "1 in 5" claim?

Ohh.... my bad. We can can probably blame slight dyslexia on that. Sorry.

[corcorangirl]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

They apparently felt the need to create a special class of marriage that fits a small minority.

We don't want that in Nebraska. Go to Iowa if you don't like it.

Who is we? I lived in Nebraska until I was 21, and consider myself a proud Nebraskan and Omahan, and I want same-sex-marriage here.

To be honest I'm a heterosexual divorced woman, I have to worry about my job, my home and a whole lot of other things than gay-marriage. BUT it is discrimination to not let two consenting adults marry (if you come with the polygamy argument now, you're welcome, let 20 consenting adults marry, I don't mind). And that's the whole point, why can you, me or anyone say that a certain "lifestyle" (as conservatives like to call it) is wrong and should not be "promoted"? It is none of our business who marries who.

Most important of all, it doesn't affect you at all. Nebraska wouldn't change a bit if homosexuals could marry, if you don't like, don't look. I don't like baggy pants, peoplemaking out public (not matter if homo- or heterosexual) and I really hate cats. Still I wouldn't want anything of those to be forbidden, if you don't like homosexuals, that's fine. They never asked for people hugging them on the streets telling them how much they are appreciated, just don't try impose your moral values on everyone. Even after 8 years of Bush America is a secular state.

I lived in France for almost five years where they have a civil-union for homosexuals which also can be used by heterosexuals and it turned out so popular that the number of people marrying or getting civil-unioned (I know that's not a word ) increased enormously. This brought the state a lot of tax revenue, because much more wedding parties took place and much more couples went on honeymoon. Still France is the same country it was in 1999 when same-sex-marriage was introduced. There are no gay people burning churches, no school books saying "straight is so last century, turn gay" or anything that conservatives in Nebraska are afraid would happen if homosexuals would finally be treated like full citizens in our beautiful state.

PS: If marriage is not about love, about what is it?

[Omaha Rocks]

This whole Gay Marriage Thread is kind of interesting, in contrast to a thread going on over in Great Debates.

In that thread several members are arguing about how pointless and meaningless marriage is, and how it should be discarded altogether.


Strange.

[corcorangirl]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

This whole Gay Marriage Thread is kind of interesting, in contrast to a thread going on over in Great Debates.

In that thread several members are arguing about how pointless and meaningless marriage is, and how it should be discarded altogether.


Strange.

Haha, actually I do think that marriage is meaningless nowadays, but it is very important to some people and I don't see a reason to not let them marry.

I wouldn't marry again, but I have a choice - gay people haven't (and please don't tell me they can marry someone of the opposite sex, that's about the most cynical thing I've ever read).

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by corcorangirl

Haha, actually I do think that marriage is meaningless nowadays, but it is very important to some people and I don't see a reason to not let them marry.

I wouldn't marry again, but I have a choice - gay people haven't (and please don't tell me they can marry someone of the opposite sex, that's about the most cynical thing I've ever read).

Well... Actually gay people CAN get married. I'm not sure what all the states are, but gays in Omaha could simply go across the river to Iowa.

We've got some friends in Minnesota - a lesbian couple - who "got married" within the last year. I'm not sure if they did that in Minnesota, or where. In fact, I don't know if it means they actually have a license, or a civil union, or what.

I don't know. Right or wrong, if there was something I really wanted - and I couldn't get it in Omaha - I'd go to wherever I could get it.

[DTO Luv]

So you're saying it's ok to deny peoples rights as long as they have them in other places. So by your logic it should be ok for the south to reinstitute Jim Crow laws as long as the blacks would quit their whining and go to another state where they can eat in a restaurant.