Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There will be no Constitutional amendment. No one favors that route outside of the most hardcore fundamentalists, and vast majority? no. A slim majority, and the younger generation doesn't care.
Take your theocratic values and go to Saudi Arabia with them.
No i'm staying in the Bay Area for the Time Being , and mature adults citizens of the United States of America have got to learn to "Agree to Disagree" don't you agree.
Yes they should be allowed to. They are just like everybody else except for sexual preference. When you can show me an example of having gay parents having a negative effect on a child, then I'll consider your claim to be at least valid.
The (GLBT) Community Gays , Lesbians , Bi-Sexuals , Transexuals are allowed to be foster parents and "Adopt Children" in the state of California.
So, when you comment on something I say, do not attempt to "interpret" it based on what "you" perceive it to mean, but rather the context and the actually meaning to which it is referred to and known.
It's an internet message board. Get used to people saying whatever they like about your posts.
Quote:
What it means "to me" and "to you" is left to subjective debates when we discuss our favorite colors or tastes in ice cream. It has no place in these debates.
I disagree. Pretty much every debate has subjectivity.
Quote:
Not "my perception", but that which is a well known definition of the issue.
I do not speak in riddles, or make wide accusations that have no founding and are left to those who divine their truth from a crystal ball or that of a pipe. Everything I say and reason is based on a well documented system of communication to which can be referenced and identified by many books to which this process is attributed to. ...
Good lord. I hope you enjoyed using this much bandwidth to say so little.
Quote:
There must be an ulterior motive when the door lies before them and must simply be walked through. What reason would a person have to avoid the door and leap through the barred window? Why? Why is there a need to push for this alternate route?
My reasoning? Two different names is reminiscent of a "separate but equal" philosophy. I think it should be all or nothing for gay couples. But one has to wonder why, if the only relevance it has to you is the something highly abstract like you outlined in your post, then why not support it? Or at least condone it?
Quote:
As a person of reason, and one who has looked at the complaints and the claims to which is offered by this group. I am confounded by the direction they take. Every claim to which they hold to can be achieved by other means. Yet why do they insist on this route? Why must reality change to meet their needs? Why can not a rational approach be made to serve their needs?
I can make assumptions, but those would be guesses. The fact remains that there is an easier road to their needs, yet it is avoided, and in some cases outright ignored to serve another. What "other" need is that?
My guess is that you don't understand because you've failed to put yourself in their shoes. You're being ethnocentric, just as Yeledaf is when he describes the superiority of heterosexual unions. Then you claim to favor reason and wonder why so much of the rest of the world is incapable of using it while yours is faulty at best. One definition of marriage, one of many that has existed over time, should be upheld, regardless of the practicality or usefulness of it, you're arguing. That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.
My reasoning? Two different names is reminiscent of a "separate but equal" philosophy. I think it should be all or nothing for gay couples.
A central point not to my knowledge previously presented. The quite legitimate demand is for equality. Full equality...as in that contemplated within the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. A marriage is a marriage, with the same rights and the same responsibilities, no matter who engages in it. We do not need or want a separate and inevitably pejorative nomenclature. It would make as much of a contribution as would saying that "families" only exist east of the Mississippi and that all those out west are called "gangs". Or maybe we could have the term "people" apply only to those who are at least six feet tall with everyone else referred to as "dweebs". No thanks, I don't think we need to go there. It is what it is, and that's what it needs to be called.
Listen i'm not trying to bash or slam you i'm just being true to myself I'm living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area...the utopia of all Homosexuals , and homosexuals have acheived "Equality" and theirs "Civil Rights" here at least so how in the world i'm i being narrow minded. And by the way any state that allow Homosexuals "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Unions" shouldn't even consider the Homosexual Marriage question. But that very question is before the California Supreme Court in San Fancisco at this very moment.
I'm a christian minister so you don't know what you are talking about , when you say that JESUS didn't say anything about "Eunuchs" Please read the post that (I ) was responding to so you can follow what I'm talking about.
GOD created "Marriage" for the first two human beings a male and a female named "ADAM" and "EVE" and the Majority of the Leadership of All Known Religious Bodies take your pick are against the idea of "Homosexual Marriage" no need to home in on "Christianity" per say i'm just trying to be real.
The "Over Whemling Majority Of American" are against Homosexual Marriage and if the (DOMA) is over turned and more states pass Homosexual Marriage Laws besides Massachusette...You will see a National Constitutional Amendment that will make marriage only between a "Man And A Woman" Legal. And if you sit down with your friends and be "Honest" with each other , you will know that what I'm saying is the absolute truth , you know that the Vast Majority of American are against homosexual marriage.
Your truth is relative because your truth is based upon religious dogma. The truth I choose to believe is based upon science and the fossil record. I seriously doubt if the first archaic homo sapiens species, Homo heidelbergensis, (500 kya - 2kya) had any conception of marriage, god, religion, or intolerance based upon sexual orientation for that matter.
You believe that God created man from dust 6,000 years ago--I believe that hominid evolution began 4.4 million years ago with absolutely no concept of man-made abstracts like marriage (or gods...).
You have every right in the world to practice your religion, but you don't have the right to force the rest of us to fall in behind you. Gays and lesbians have not reached anything resembling this "equality" of which you speak. It wasn't too terribly long ago that Christianity was used to keep an entire segment of our population firmly in second class status and it had to be brought kicking and screaming into tolerance. I have no use for organized religion or its treatment of those who do not follow its tenents.
Jesus may have been tolerant, but my experience tells me that the vast majority of his followers definitely are not.
The child will likely be more tolerant of people different than himself, and that's a good thing. Children are raised by all sorts of people. single mothers, single fathers, drug addicts, abusers, and some are raised in homes or foster care. A good loving set of parents of any orientation can be an improvement over many situations. Many high functioning happy humans were raised by gay parents, there have been studies of adults raised in these families and no correlation with personal problems were found.
I recently read a book about adults who were raised by gay parents (can't remember the name right now) and it did note that the children were generally more tollerant, and less confined to traditional gender roles - but statistically, children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than those of straight parents.
One of the biggest problems these children face is hostility from other kids and even more, from their peers parents. But this also depended on where they grew up- in more conservative areas, the kids were faced with more hositility from peers whereas those raised in liberal/open minded areas faced little or no hostility.
Your arguments are off base there are many "Polygamy" Marriage in the western states of Neveda , Utah , Arizona , New Mexico , California which are all illegal under United State of America Laws.
Polygamy is "HARD WIRED INTO MEN AND WOMEN BRAINS" and not "Momogamy" i'm shocked that you don't know about the "Thousands " of studies on this subject.From the onset of boy like girl and girl likes boys we have to sacrafice ourself to be faithful to just one sexual partner be it in a Marriage or any other committed relationship don't you agree.
Polygamy is NOT hardwired into the brain--it was controlled by DNA thousands of years ago when males were driven to "spread their seed" as much as possble to ensure propagation of the species. Monogamy began to evolve around the time of homo sapien sapien and Neanderthal when females sought ONE mate who subsequently fathered her children, protected her and her children, hunted and provided for them. In return, males KNEW that the children that they were providing for were biologically theirs.
Committed relationships are no sacrifice if both persons within that relationship have a modicum of decency and loyalty to their partner. Men simply enjoy the "strange" and the thrill of the hunt and so consequently, many of them never grow up enough to keep it in their pants.
Is your wife aware of the fact that it's such a burden and sacrifice for men not to go out and ping everything in a skirt? Oh, but that's the devil tempting you boys to sin, right? It's not your fault.
BTW, I am aware that there are polygamous relationships within the U.S.--most can be attributed to wacko religious cults. But as I said before, what happens between consenting adults is not of my business--ADULTS being the operative word here. I very much have a problem with those people who take 12 year old girls as wives while proclaiming that God told them to. That's merely a smoke screen for pedophilia.
The (GLBT) Community Gays , Lesbians , Bi-Sexuals , Transexuals are allowed to be foster parents and "Adopt Children" in the state of California.
There are also surrogacy agencies in California that cater to gay couples. That's how we're becoming parents. And we both go on the birth certificate as legal, natural parents, and no other state can contest it. No adoption process is necessary, although they file legal paperwork stating this. Colorado recently change it's laws to allow same sex couples to be legal, equal parents to a child as well. It differs by state.
Marriage is a vow that you and your spouse make before God. Whether or not homosexuals can do this...take it up with your Church.
Marriage by the government is really only a legal contract between two parties. There shouldn't be a Constitutional Amendment, this is a state issue. All the gays can move to Massachusetts or California...or try to have the LEGISLATURE of their state change the laws (not the courts, I hate when the courts change laws). Conversely, those who don't want gay marriage can move OUT of California or Massachusetts or petition the legislature to fix the laws.
For me, the big issue is the breaking down of societal norms. In our Judeo-Christian society it was a man and a woman that married. Now it's gay marriage, but what about bisexual people who want a spouse of both sexes, or the polygamists who demand the right to have more than one spouse, or animal lovers who want the right to have their bestiality partner enjoy legal rights...sounds crazy but once you open the barn door (so to speak)...
Gays are defined as such by nothing more than their sexual practices. I'm very confused about why they need "equality" anyway. What about people with foot fetishes, S&M followers, those "into" latex, swingers...shouldn't they be protected from discrimination as well? Why aren't they marching for equal rights...
Marriage is a vow that you and your spouse make before God. Whether or not homosexuals can do this...take it up with your Church.
Marriage by the government is really only a legal contract between two parties. There shouldn't be a Constitutional Amendment, this is a state issue. All the gays can move to Massachusetts or California...or try to have the LEGISLATURE of their state change the laws (not the courts, I hate when the courts change laws). Conversely, those who don't want gay marriage can move OUT of California or Massachusetts or petition the legislature to fix the laws.
For me, the big issue is the breaking down of societal norms. In our Judeo-Christian society it was a man and a woman that married. Now it's gay marriage, but what about bisexual people who want a spouse of both sexes, or the polygamists who demand the right to have more than one spouse, or animal lovers who want the right to have their bestiality partner enjoy legal rights...sounds crazy but once you open the barn door (so to speak)...
Gays are defined as such by nothing more than their sexual practices. I'm very confused about why they need "equality" anyway. What about people with foot fetishes, S&M followers, those "into" latex, swingers...shouldn't they be protected from discrimination as well? Why aren't they marching for equal rights...
Uh, I believe NJ also has domestic partnerships as well as several other states.
So as a hetero, are you defined by your sexual practices? I find your statement incredibly insulting. My relationship with my partner is based on love, not sex.
Heteros with foot fetishes, into latex, swingers, into S&M exist, yet they're allowed to marriage. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not fetishes. No one is out there discriminating against people with foot fetishes. There's no way to know what everyone's fetishes are, and they're generally private. And now that you've dragged out the slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals, it's obvious you have no solid argument. Find me 10 people who want to marry their pet, and we'll talk.
We've change societal norms many times in the history of this country. Otherwise we'd still have slaves and women would be second class citizens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No i'm staying in the Bay Area for the Time Being , and mature adults
