First off, I'm not knocking anyone's personal preference, or life choices.

I just voiced my opinion, which is coming from someone that pretty much isn't biased. And obviously, the majority feels the same. And for the record, I'm not a "church person either."

I don't want to knock them, but it seems kind of odd they can say "god loves everyone," and then turn around and say "god hates ***s."


The only one trolling is the person saying it's trolling, and then saying "why would a straight man marry another man." If you can't grasp the concept of it being an example, than you probably aren't really going to understand the basic debate. Once again, slowly. A straight man can't choose to marry a man either, so it really isn't discrimination. I love my dog, but should I be able to marry it? Sure, you can't marry a dog, but why?
It is between a man & a woman. If they make it ok for a man to marry a man, then what's stopping it from being that a man can marry two women. Or a goat, & so on.

If you really look at the whole history of it, it looks like a personal feud between gays & the church. It's not discriminatory against anyone, for the reason I said. It is just the basic rule of "marriage." People are just against using the term "marriage," most people seem to be fine with some sort of civil union. And I also pointed out a way to have a permanent, legal family bond, that has been going on for decades.

The law that is discriminatory is the one barring them from military service. Besides being stupid to turn away someone willing to risking their life to serve the country, it also bars them from benefits, the G.I. bill, and much more.



And as far as this

That's funny, because that state seems to believe it's ok for the federal government to tell someone dying of cancer they can't smoke something that will ease the pain of chemo, and be grown in their own back yard, for free. So that comment is incredibly weak.

History of what? Marriage?

It has become that because of religion and a desire for one set of persons to say how another set of persons should live.

Again-Marriage is older than the bible and just because religion now says that you can do this or cannot do that doesn't mean it's right.

BTW if a man wants to marry his goat he wouldn't because he would not gain anything materialistic from that union which is what marriage was in the first place.

He could shag it, if that's his desire but he probably wouldn't marry it.

In fact I am unsure as to your goal regarding this topic. You say you are not a 'church' person but then admit to saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman which is definitely a religious view regardless of your own beliefs.

People leave money to their dogs, why not a goat?

And while you are right, technically, it has usually been about money.

The other thing is perpetuation of the species. And two males can't reproduce.

The goat on the other hand..

http://www.tmrzoo.com/wp-content/upl...1/goat-boy.jpg


Another reason it doesn't pass is because fortunately, voting is private, so you can tell people one thing, and vote something else.

And some of the gay people with money are probably voting "no," because then they will have to come up with another excuse.

Do you really think the Catholics will ever give into it, or the mormons, or any of the other majors? The Jews might, but then it makes no sense about their other stuff. My wife is jewish, and they wouldn't do it.

It doesn't take a "church person" to figure out the church isn't going to have it.

I truly do not not know what the fuck you are talking about half the time and I don't think you do either.

'Some of the gay people'? What is meant by this? U mean that religious authorities won't give in to same sex unions?

Your posts are rambling beyond belief and I don't know what subject you are talking about from one minute to the next.

It is almost certainly obvious from your posts that you are homophobic and if you are not then you are sailing perilously close to the winds regarding this subject.

I've already been over this, and that is a ridiculously invalid argument. If marriage is solely for reproduction, then sterile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either, yeah?

Also, do you know how difficult it is for a gay couple to adopt in my region? I know of one gay couple who were successful, and at least a dozen more who are bringing in 6 figure incomes, nice houses, nice neighborhoods, solid jobs, clean criminal background, etc. etc., and they're having immense difficulty being able to adopt.

I know straight couples who are lower middle class who have had much less trouble.

Actually, executive order under the current administration dictates state law must be respected. I would think being a Californian, you'd know that. I'm guessing because you voted McCain - you don't.

*sitcom oooOOOoooh*

what?

AudienceSounds.com - Virtual Studio Audience Soundboard.

Click on Oooh.

What our esteemed Bostonian has tried to tell you is that the point of marriage and equality is that you can marry the person you love. Obviously, since straight people can marry people they love and gay people can't, there is no equality.

Also, marriage is a social and legal contract, regulated by the state because it, not the church, believes it has certain benefits, such as promoting stable relationships. As a contract, it can only be entered into by consenting adults, which excludes dogs, goats and other entities not able to give their consent.

As far as gay marriage leading to polygamy, the main difference at this point is practicality. Marriage can easily be expanded to include the reality of a lot of gay people's lives without significantly changing the basic framework of marriage. Polygamous marriages would create a whole slew of legal complications, such as inheritance, property division, custody of children etc. Not to mention that most polygamous relationships stem from backward social/religious groups. Theoretically, it's not too far fetched to conceive of such relationships which would be based on mutual love and understanding, in practice, it's probably an exception from the rule which is why it isn't likely such relationships will be condoned by western countries any time soon.

Neither can a lot of straight couples, are you proposing introducing fertility tests as a condition for a valid marriage license?

Nobody cares what the church wants here and nobody is forcing the churches to change their views on marriage, we're talking about the civil institution of marriage, regulated by the state, which, unlike the churches, has a duty to treat all of its citizens equally.