Kyle said "Great points MaryAnn! "Homosexuals have the same right as I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex" which is point hardly ever made and needs to be spoken."
Goats have the right to have sex with cows"

Yep they sure do Kyle, however nature dictates that they dont.....nature has never produced a goat cow mix. nature dictates male of each spieces(sic) mates with the female of that species. If you, as most athiests do take the God component out, the laws of nature take over and it is still the same result.

Pilot you can hear it now or later. You may be sucessfull & buy me out. But you will hear this voice again one day soon & no amount of gifts will silence it. Thanks for the offer its the best ive had all day.

Thanks for your patience Gw

Doing my nightly check-in.

Who's ahead now?

Some children are born with an abnormal high desire to lie, cheat, & steal. We immediately recognize this weakness & begin to take corrective action.

Some are born with an abnormally high attention deficit dis order. We have counciling & medicines that are available to try & correct the problem.

Some children are born with a unusual weakness for alcohol that manifest latter in life. We recommend them to AAA, & help them to curb there very dangerous disorder.

Some are born with a great & insatiable desire to eat, it brings them comfort to over eat etc. We then try to educate them in to more self control, exercise, maybe even surgery.

Some are born with the desire to have sex with there own sex. So in order to fix this abnormal disorder we decide thats a OK & then seek to change laws & definitions & whats acceptable & healthy & call anybody that disagrees a narrow minded, judgmental bigot.

Now the word insane means not capable of making normal decisions, not being able to properly evaluate & access normal directions.

"Homosexuality is a complete slap in the face to GOD."

Gary, I don't believe in your god and your gods capriocious ways so How about you provide me with a watertight argument complete with logical evidence that supports your position that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

If I claim to know that the real true god is completely indifferent to sexual identity and loves us all since she created us all then my argument is as valid as yours if we use religion as a basis for this discussion.

WHY DOES GOD HATE THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY SO MUCH?

Marriage between a man & woman is a perfect type of God & his bride. A man seeks out a women with character, strength wisdom etc she is chosen by the man because she will reflect his beliefs, values, she will complements his self. With HOLY WEDLOCK the true love union not (animalistic lust) will bring forth fruits of this just & normal union. The offspring will be a continuance & manifestation & evidence of a good & holy union. The marriage bed is undefilled. The woman choses to submit to this man because he is just, righteous, dependable, kind, considerate, good provider etc.

The children, if raised in the admonition of the Lord will follow there Godly parents example. They will honor God, mother hood, country, laws etc.

Christ choses HIS bride the same way, all this takes place that I have just described only on a more spiritual level. He injects HIS seed (word) in us & we are impregnated with HIS life & begin to produce the fruits of righteousness, holiness, We will reflect HIS values, morales, justice, His Word.

The womb of a women was made by design to receive the mans life ( blood, seed)

Homosexuality is a complete slap in the face to GOD & most anything that is just. It is a complete & perfect perversion: The seed is taken & injected in a place that was only meant & designed for the elimination of uncleanliness. The sperm which was meant to bring forth Gods life is now mingled with manure, saliva, & blood.

Now Gods program brings forth life. The gay union brings forth death. In the last days there shall be plagues; in the Greek it means in curable diseases etc. The gay union brings forth confusion; whos the male whos the female.. uncleanliness, rebellion, violence, depression etc.

Thanks Gw

Jared, sorry if I didn't make it clear; my point was that gender isn't what makes great parents (or a great parent). =D

Jared...You correctly say we don't live in an ideal world but that doesn't mean we should not strive toward an ideal world. THAT is what this debate is about. Allowing people to marry those whom they love and with whom they wish to spend their lives IS reaching toward the ideal world.

Marriage doesn't need protection from gay people who want to live their lives together like anyone else. Almost half us US marriages end in divorce. Seems to me that straight couples aren't doing such a great job of "protecting" the institution of marriage.

Another reason to "protect" marriage by preventing gay couples from tying the knot is the raising of children??? Really? "In the 1940s fewer than five percent of the total births were out of wedlock. By the early 2000s, according to statistics compiled by the Center for Health Statistics at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, births to unmarried mothers accounted for nearly one-third of all U.S. births."

Jared, I'm just guessin' here, but I don't see how gay couples can mess up marriage OR child rearing much more than it aleady is by straight couples.

But, these are opinions, and, like body orifices, everybody has'em. You've expressed yours and I've expressed mine. What I have NOT seen is anybody's opinion about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution wherein all states are required to honor the legal proceedings of every other state. This would trump the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If a state (Iowa, for example) does allow same sex marriages -- regardless of any religious opinions -- explain to me how Texas could not recognize those marriages if the couples come to Texas to live. Are you somehow suggesting that a gay couple who marries in Iowa must remain there in order for their marriage to be legal, but a straight couple can move anywhere in the country -- or the world, for that matter -- and have their marriages recognized as legal? Wouldn't that kinda violate equal protection? These are questions for which I've been waiting for answers, but don't seem to find anyone willing to give it a shot.

Hi Jared, I have a question. You said "We also cannot marry anybody we want and are restricted to certain rules." But that is the whole point, right? I have read many of your posts and though I clearly see where you stand on this issue, I am still not understanding exactly why you are opposed to gay marriage. I personally feel that allowing gays to marry will not take away from anyone else's marriage, though I have heard people say that it would cheapen the institution of marriage as a whole. Try as I might, I cannot understand this line of reasoning. I feel that allowing gays to marry would encourage and enable more of them to seek true love and commitment. How can giving more respect and dignity ever be a bad thing or cause problems? I feel that problems arise when rules are unfair and respect is withheld and right now, the rules about marriage in this country are unfair because they say that only those fortunate enough to have been born heterosexual are allowed to marry their partners.

Also, you have said that love is not the only piece of the pie, but I feel that where marriage is concerned, it is a pretty big and delectable piece of it! ;) Seriously though, I do not mean to be dense and I can see how much thought you have put into this. I am just hoping to understand your point of view a little better.

I enjoy reading your posts and I appreciate how respectful you are in your arguments.

Thanks to you too, Jared. I appreciate the point of view even though I don't necessarily agree with all sides. You actually remind me of one of my very favorite people on planet Earth. We don't agree on much when it comes to religion or politics, but we have a roaring good time when we're together!

Until the next thread!!! Maybe next time we'll be on the same side. :)

Live long and prosper! _\\//

And later to everyone else! Kyle again thanks for the defense and laughs. Straight men standing in the gap for gay ones is a new sign of powerful masculinity in the new millennium and it's radical! Kata...your words are always amusing, graceful & full of insight. RR, WWW, VET... o/\o (that's a high five by the way). /deepbow to Rebecca & EdithAnn. Beakus, feel free to press my comment button on my profile if you really want to get in depth with me. Some of what you asked I'm just not comfortable with talking about on a forum. MaryAnn, thanks for allowing a hijack of your letter to the editor. Sorry if I forgot anyone... It's been a long day.

To the rest... Enjoy your icecream. :)

I agree katasongbird. It is hard to see someones point of view when they continuously avoid straight forward questions and instead insert sarcastic remarks of how smart they are. Bottom line is the questions will never be answered because the answer that would have to be given would prove that individual wrong. You have a wonderful day.

If I am J-Dawg, that would allow me to call you G-dog which brings back many basketball trips. I still remember Snoop Dog playing in the background and a player walking up with a brown sack (looked like liquor) and the coach going nuts. The player pulled the bottle out and it was apple cider.

It looks like we agree on many points. The places we disagree it looks like is: Numbers 1, 3, 6.

1. I knew you would say this ;) I wrote out a response to you, but erased it. But I also wanted to show that it is not just same sex couples that I disagree with. Cohabiting, if stats are correct, is closely tied to marital divorce. Given your situation, it kinda makes it hard to write about because marriage is not allowed. For example, reasons some marriages succeed is because it is a public vow. Cohabitting couples do not express this as such. Would a same sex marriage be successful if it could publicly take vows? That I don't know.

3. We disagree on right and wrong ways to procreate. I do think it is very important. Homosexual oriented people, male or female, have tremendous things to offer (remember though, your value as a person is not determined by what you offer). I am not convinced protection by the State is needed though. I understand you love your partner, but as I mentioned eariler, love is not the only criteria (by the way this is true for heterosexuals too). We also cannot marry anybody we want and are restricted to certain rules.

6. I agree that we don't live in an ideal world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. I would say that it is because we don't live in an ideal world that we have to protect this institution. I would propose that numerous laws in the recent half century have actually hurt this institution.

You have asked some very good questions. I am very glad you shared with us. This conversation has given the opportunity to see it better through a different lens and has had me do some research on some of the "why's". We may disagree on this, but I cannot help see this was a charitable conversation, open to dialogue, no screaming over each other, and eye opening. I appreciate your common courtesy, especially on a topic that I know you feel very strongly about. It is evidence of a patient and tolerant character.

Hicktoria - you are incapable of seeing my point and I am incapable of pretending I have no intellect so we obviously cannot meet on equal ground here. Buh-bye!

"He was raised thinking it waswrong and so he fought against it. He married a woman and they had a child."

Apparently, he did not fight to hard. It astounds me that a man who knows he is gay marries and then fathers a child. Then wants to marry again? To a man? What kind of message does that send to the child? Was that fair to the mother? I could go on but I will leave it at that...

Notice how when some posters are presented with valid questions, they choose not to answer. Wonder why that is...LOL

So, you are going to compare this topic to ice cream HAHAHA Way to avoid the question...

The Geek - I need a "like" button for #3 of your last post!

Hicktoria, my point was that only someone perpetually stuck in 1985 would think that those articles show proof of anything other than promiscuity among certain homosexuals being a risk factor for contracting HIV. So again I say that it makes no sense to send these links to a non-promiscuous gay man. I could email you a couple of links discussing the many straight people who contracted AIDS through sex so my points still stand. AIDS might be sexually transmitted when ANYONE chooses to have sex with someone who has had previous partners. In other words a whole lot of people are at risk for this disease. It does not just suddenly spawn from two homosexuals who have had no previous contact with the disease!

As for the matter of the Geek being a father. You will get all the info you need if you read his previous posts. He is gay. He was raised thinking it waswrong and so he fought against it. He married a woman and they had a child. He later realized he couldn't maintain living a lie. He was not bisexual. He fathered a child while he was married and later came out and is now in a committed relationship with a gay man. Your comment that a confused individual has no right to father a child is extremely offensive. Everyone is confused and conflicted at some point in their lives, that is part of growing up and evolving. Since I, too, have had times in my life when I struggled to figure out who I was and what I wanted to do and I certainly have had times when I forgot to use common sense, then I guess I, too, am not worthy of being a parent. Wow, someone tell my kids I love them and I'm sorry that mommy wasn't perfect.

I prefer Vanilla, pecan praline & mint chocolate chip... I suppose that makes me metropolitan...???

But admittedly mint chocolate chip is the one always order and that alone... Homopolitan I must remain...

Finally you say… [Ultimately it goes to the nature of marriage needing protection for the common good.] I agree. I would like marriage to be protected. Married couples should have legal rights in regards to one another, should be viewed by society as family and should be granted status as ‘married’ in whatever venue they choose to present themselves that way. I would just add that as an American citizen I would love to be invited to take part in that protected status… For the common good.

J-dawg… Can I call you J-dawg? I feel we’re that close now… ;)

Jared, I fully understand your responses, but to me they still don’t answer the fundamental question. The question is a legal one. I’m going to respond to your responses by number instead of a crap-ton of quotes to keep the post shorter.

1. I spelled cohabitate wrong… But if I understand you correctly you would advise me not to move in with my partner because it leads to divorce, but also say that I shouldn’t be permitted to marry my partner which would make our living together allowed… Conundrum… I know I don’t have to tell you that if we aren’t allowed to marry then divorce is moot. My point was that if we live together already, then if we were opposite gender marriage (common law or otherwise) would be the obvious next legal step. I feel like you've left no room for a next right choice in your scenario.

2. Indeed. No disagreement here.

3. It is my belief that procreation can be done by cretins (married, unmarried, polygamous or otherwise). However, to raise a child takes every virtue known to man. Gay people allowed to marry would provide a very valuable service to society by opening up hundreds of thousands of homes to children who are neglected abused and unwanted. Surely you can see the benefit to society of less homeless (or aborted??) or unwanted children. The continuation of society is NOT contingent on procreation. That is vital to the continuation of the species. Civilization and society will progress because of how we rear our children. Something that gay people could do very well.

4. Taxes…bleh…but yes we agree.

5. Good! My thought was that being American allows us the sovereign right of the individual to make choices regarding our personal lives and how we fit into society at large. But gratz on going exotic, brah!!! Hella cool!

6. Here I must quote you… You say…[ But not in the same way as a mom and dad. Homosexual or not, moms and dads bring something entirely different to the rearing of children and a child needs both.] I would not argue. But this point does not disqualify gay couples. A man and a man and/or a woman and a woman bring something entirely different to the rearing of children as well. Ideally, two people to raise a child is great, but we don’t live in an ideal world and there are parentless kids without enough male/female couples to take them all in. I still don’t see how this disqualifies gays from being married…

How does bisexual imply confusion? I can like chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream in the same dish - that's not confusion, that's Neapolitan.

:-)

You can call it a low blow all you want, but the facts remain. I am fully aware that it is not 1985. The CDC posts were from 2006 and 2011.

I think my question was and still is fair. I asked, if he was born gay, (It has been brought to my attention that you are born gay and not turned to being gay. Thanks, Kyle) Then, How is it possible to be a parent through natural means? Now if one would answer, bisexual, you are opening up another can of grotesque worms. That would mean not only does that individual lack instinct and common sense, but also possesses a huge amount of confusion. Which in turn, would add all the more reasoning for gays not to marry or have the right to raise a child that is not theirs.

THEgeek, thanks, that helps a lot.

"Sure Jared...
I would like to know on what basis one could justify denying me the right to marry the person I love." I think we have already covered this part eariler, love is not the only piece of the pie.

"1. We already cohabitant." I would tell a heterosexual couple the same thing here, there is a strong correlation between cohabiting and divorce. If children need a strong family unit for all sorts of reasons, cohabitting can be very dangerous.

"2. I am already a parent." Yes, and you have the rights of a parent as well. You are the primary educator of your children for instance.

"3. There is the potential for us to rear a child." Rear yes, but not procreate. This is important because it regards the continuing of society. Each child deserves to be conceived and born to a mother and father. Anything outside of natural conception begins the idea that children are a right and not a gift. In a sense, the person is forcing something that ought to be a gift.

"4. We pay taxes." Of course you do, and Uncle Sam is very happy. ;) I understand your point. We are supposed to be paying taxes for the common good.

"5. We are both natural-born American citizens." What are you trying to say, I am not married because my wife is not from here? Kidding, she really isn't from here, but I don't think either us think this is the reason to not allow same sex marriage.

"6. Our family would (and in fact already does) benefit society." But not in the same way as a mom and dad. Homosexual or not, moms and dads bring something entirely different to the rearing of children and a child needs both.

"I truly cannot wrap my head around any sound and logical reason why I cannot legally bind my life to the person I choose to do so." I have given you some reasons, at least the reasons I know. I cannot force you to understand it. Ultimately it goes to the nature of marriage needing protection for the common good.

"As an aside... I would never be in favor of forcing any religious institution to perform or recognize gay marriages. In fact, I also believe churches should have the right to denounce homosexuality in the streets." It would depend for me. I do not denounce homosexual orientation. To do this is to judge a person.

Just wait, soon I will have a list of questions to trade ;)

Ok, my resolve is dead. Hicktoria, there is no point to your question that I can see. Whether, kyle knows the geek or not doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that he called you out for a low blow. I was about to do the same myself but I was still trying to ignore you at that point in time.

One more thing, this is not 1985 and so most people in the world know AIDS is no longer considered just a homosexual problem. The reason AIDS got out of hand in the first place was due in large part to promiscuity on the part of both homosexuals AND heterosexuals. By giving gay people the right to marry and encouraging them to commit their lives to one other person, we are helping those who do not want to be promiscuous. (The Geek has made it clear that he is in a committed relationship and has been for some time so why you would send him your little links is beyond me.) Furthermore, AIDS remains something that anyone who has sex with multiple partners and has not been tested needs to worry about, including those who are and have always been straight.

RR - Sorry, I do not sugar coat things as Jared does. If you consider that trolling, so be it. It is after all your opinion. :)

If this thread were a road map we would have driven off this flat earth aroung comment #179.

And how did drinking in front of someone make s connection with a debate on same-sex marriage?

So many folks want smaller government then insist on making a law to stop people from having freedom to chose a spouse.

Hick,

I don't agree with Jared, but he's not a "troll."

There's a difference in having a civilized debate and just throwing stuff out there for attention.

Are you going to dissapear again after Calhoun fails once again? Nothing against them, but they're not an elite team like so many of their fans think. I've seen football all over the state...get out. There's football outside of the coastal bend LOL

No, that is why I was asking him a question. I am sure he can answer for himself.

No, do you?

Do you personally know the geek Kyle?

Come on Hick, seriously. Please place the word biological in front of parent to answer your own question.

My resolve to not respond to some things is weakening. Must. . . not . . give in!

Apollo-

I can't even let my dog lay a log in a neighbor's yard without someone pitching a fit. It's just getting ridiculous these days. Everything is offensive. Everything gotta be sued for. When was the last time you were able to go out in public and drink in front of someone without them getting all riled up over nothing or nothing at all.

Well-written anyway.

How are you a parent geek? If you are born gay, you should not be a parent through natural means....

The Geek - I wish you were governor. Logical, respectful and so well-spoken. I love reading your posts!

Sure Jared...

I would like to know on what basis one could justify denying me the right to marry the person I love.

1. We already cohabitant.
2. I am already a parent.
3. There is the potential for us to rear a child.
4. We pay taxes.
5. We are both natural-born American citizens.
6. Our family would (and in fact already does) benefit society.

I truly cannot wrap my head around any sound and logical reason why I cannot legally bind my life to the person I choose to do so.

As an aside... I would never be in favor of forcing any religious institution to perform or recognize gay marriages. In fact, I also believe churches should have the right to denounce homosexuality in the streets. It is America, after all. I definitely think it does more to damage their cause than help it, but hey! That's their prerogative.

why are rude cellphone users Ok, but a cigarette comes near and you'd think the world was over. I fought in Korea!

I think America has lost a lot of freedom. I am OK with gays doing whatever they want, but i wish the same could happen for me. I used to be able to smoke inany restaurant and now? I'm sposed to stand out side like a hobo. Lets all just mind our business.

RR - I guess your definition of a "troll" is anyone who does not share your point of view. Figures...

BTW - are you going to be ready to "troll" against Calhoun this year?
We have a good prospect coming in from Rockdale. Already signed to Oklahoma.

http://oklahoma.scout.com/a.z?s=146&p...

Kyle, agreed, not right time or place. Thanks Kyle for mentioning it.

Katasongbird-

Let's just agree to disagree. We can't just keep talking meaninglessly about these sorts of things when try to make sense of it all. I didn't mean to offend when I was talking about fleas and infecting. I just wanted an analogy that would make sense to most people because I really felt I needed to explain myself right. Too many people try to explain how they feel but they don't always say what they mean to say when a discussion is going on about something relevant.

Seriously Hick, the man openly states he his homosexual and you link to a CDC article and HIV and AIDS.

That is low.

THEgeek, As regards your words on how we are to debate, I cannot agree with you more.

You say:
"That brings a smile to my face and allows me to respect you that much more." THEgeek, I respect you as person with intrinsic value. There is nothing you can do that would take away this worth. One of my favorite lines from Chesterton is the idea the each person is a "Great-Might-Not-Have-Been." It pains me to see somebody treated as anything less than a person.

Back to the story:

"My question then is this: What is this marriage discrimination (disallowing and banning equal protection under the law for same sex couples) based on?"

I will have to say I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it please?

Hicktoria is trying so hard to "troll" but no one is really biting LOL

kathrynrey - I feel very sorry for them and they should all be allowed to marry, adopt kids and not have sex for the rest of their lives if that's what they want. Like same-sex marriage, it's just not my business.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/d...

Hicktoria-

You are a great guy.

Katasongbird-

You missed my point entirely. It's not completely normal for everyone. Some people have sexual feelings whatsoever. Does that make them bad people?

Hey geek did you know:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/d...

Geek - very wise as always.

Rebecca, sorry, what I meant by apples and organges, is that comparing a horrible parents of a heterosex marriage and the ideal same sex couple are two different things.

The reason is because I can say that I would rather be raised by the perfect hetero parents than abusive homosexual oriented couple. But this is not a good comparison because it assume every hetero couple is abusive or every homosexual oriented couple is perfect. Better to compare two loving couples from each orientation.

As you mentioned desiring to be raised by a loving couple, that is where the debate would begin. I wasn't trying to compare either way with what I said.

kathrynrey, I am talking about the fact that some people are Ok with homosexuals as long as they don't act on their sexual feelings. I have spoken to some of these anti-gays who seem to find this reasonable. Such people really scare me because they demonstrate a profound lack of logic and empathy. Anyone who has ever been in love (except maybe for those in very extreme and limited cases like the ones you came up with) should be able to recall their own sense of thrilling excitement that occurs when one is with their romantic partner. It cannot just be turned on and off for convenience, and why would we want it to? it is just silly to say that it's fine for all of us to experience the sexual side of love as long as we're not in love with someone of our same sex.

I just read a couple of comments that made my skin crawl. First the analogy with "infesting" puppies (children) with fleas. That is as close to the edge of disrespct for your fellow man as you can get.

Then, "I don't want any child born to abusive or horrid parents".

How could anyone make such a statement.

All children are beautiful and to throw them out like a broken toy is beyond belief.

There is an old internet adage (if anything related to the internet can truly be considered 'old') which states "Don't feed the troll."

Meaningful dialogue is one thing. But back and forth banter with ...how shall I state this... the IQ < 70 crowd...*ahem*... Really that just ends up in circular and baseless posts that generally get modded out of existence.

I was taught not to pick on those who were smaller than I, and I try to live by that. I will therefore not engage those with 'less than epic' cerebral fortitude for fear of becoming dumber as I converse with them. Just a thought for those frustrated by some of the more amusing arguments. ;)

Back to you Jared...

You say:
[I don't think it has any to do with discrimination based on orientation for it is quite clear to me that would be unjust.]

That brings a smile to my face and allows me to respect you that much more. My question then is this:

What is this marriage discrimination (disallowing and banning equal protection under the law for same sex couples) based on?

Well Kyle, There is no need for me to re-post what others have posted. But, I will entertain you with my personal take on it. I personally think it is instinct and common sense that separates the gays from the straight. It makes no sense for two guys or two women to behave in a manner that is not meant to be. The only reason I can see this happening is due to lack of common sense and instinct not being passed down from guess who mother and father. I once heard you state that you are born gay. This being the case, it would be logical to assume that you also got shorted on the instinct and common sense gene. Sad really, but true.

Katasongbird-

So you have to consummate a relationship in order for it to be valid? Where are we? King Henry's court? What about people who are asexual or who simply don't want to have sex? Or those people who psychological disorders that prevent them from having sex? Maybe Hicktoria has a point here.

"It is just wrong..."

There is nothing here to back up your assertion, Hick. You need evidence to prove that this is indeed the case.

If you want to get into a discussion on moral subjectivity and what is the nature of truth then by all means, continue...

Oh no Hicktoria - it looks like you are one of those people who are OK with homosexuals feeling love for each other but you expect them to be celibate. Is this correct? So if you fall in love with someone can you actually imagine not consummating that love .. . ever?! I can't. If I had met my husband and fallen in love and then tried not to act on that love, I would not have been successful. Romantic love isn't just with the heart and mind, it is consummated with the body.

Rebecca loving someone of the same sex and having sex with the same sex is WAY different. I know you get that! It is just wrong...

Interesting point waywardwind.

Kyle-

Two people of the same sex cannot raise a child properly because they are not of the opposite sex. Simple. You need a mother and a father. Not Bob and Rob.

What ever you want to call it... WWW calls it "bumping uglies" so whats your point lol

Rebecca - Bravo!!!!! I completely agree!

Oh I get it Hicktoria - you are on here to just spout insanity in order to stir people up. " . . . doing the nasties. . . . " - haha! Good joke, buddy!

I guess your definition of hot and mine are WAY different then! LOL

I would MUCH rather be raised by someone whose only "sin" was that they loved someone of the same sex, than by someone who was filled with anger and took out that anger on his or her children. One "sin" is visible, while the other might go on from generation to generation...

Hicktoria - I just laughed out loud! (no offense, but it was at your expense.) There are a LOT of hot, gorgeous gay people. Where DID you come from??!!

katasongbird..."There are plenty of horrible heterosexual couples raising children and yet, it seems there are not quite as many voices condemning the parenting of these kinds of couples as there are condemning homosexual couples."

Well, there might be if the comments didn't get deleted by the censors. Not long ago, there was a gang thug convicted of murder and sentenced to the Huntsville Hilton where he'll join his brother, also a convicted murderer. There are more siblings at home and Mom said that they want to be just like their big brothers. I commented that we probably haven't heard the last from this "family" and mentioned that, while you have to pass a test and get a license to legally drive, any fool can have kids. It didn't last very long on the forum. I'm guessing that if I'd made a derogatory comment about a gay couple wanting to raise children, that comment would be allowed to stay. Go figger.

Come on now! We all know kids learn from what they see. It is natural. If they see daddy and daddy doing the nasties, what kind of message does that send? Get real !

Katasongbird

So you're telling me that gays are the product of genes? What proof do you have?

I will never turn to the dark side!

"Have you ever noticed that people who are against abortion are people you would not want to have sex with in the first place!"
--George Carlin

I think the same applies to gays...

Kathrynrey,

I apologize and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Without using the following words "The, Bible, In, says and sin" could you please educate me as to why two people of the same sex can't raise a child appropriately?

Thanks

kathrynrey,

Every child has no choice in who their parents are, not just those raised by homosexuals. I love mine, but do you think I had a choice in them? No.

Gay rights are the new civil rights movement.

I doubt there is any home without sin - we all sin in some way.

-Rebecca

You're right about that. I don't want any child born to abusive or horrid parents.

It isn't fair. But that's the fault of man not God. Mankind can be that cruel.

So kathrynrey, it seems you think that raising a child around gay couples "infests" them with homosexuality? That thinking might work if homosexuality was a choice or a learned behavior like most of the things we inflict upon our children, but it's not. Watch out though, children raised by homosexuals may be infested with *gasp* more tolerance. Oh, the humanity!

If you want to argue fruit with nuts, here we are. =P

-Kyle

You do? Your icon of Donald Trump just shows how illogical you are. If you didnt understand what I said then you won't be able to figure out anything anyone else says about anything on here anytime.

kath, I would much rather be raised by parents who love me.

How many same sex couples get married because they are pregnant and then have a child they didn't want? Same sex couples are fighting for their right to marry and fighting for their right to raise a child. (Here's where you can argue fruit.)

"Fair?"

Is it "fair" that a child is born to a family who is abusive and another is raised by loving parents who are not abusive? (Here's where you can't argue fruit.)

" It's clear logic!"

I'm not entirely convinced that you understand the definition of logic since you don't employ it's valuable services to any degree in your comments.

A child raised by homosexuals will be raised in sin. How is that moral? How is that fair? The child has no choice who their parents are. It's like buying a puppy without fleas and purposefully putting it in a stinky mess with other flea infested animals. Why give a perfectly fine puppy fleas when they didn't have fleas to begin with. It's clear logic!

Catholicism

Coincidentally, am in the process of making a big fruit salad. Strangely, I have NO apples and NO oranges here. ;)

Jared, I disagree. I wasn't comparing apples to oranges; I was comparing two apples, two oranges, an apple and an orange, and an orange and an apple. Kidding. I think you read something into my comment that I didn't mean to imply. =P

Redrage - :)

I don't understand why some of you think "procreation" is the end-all-be-all of marriage. Allowing gays to get married isn't going to stop the life cycle. Heterosexual couples will still have children (gay and straight kids I might add). To think otherwise is just ridiculous. We already have enough unwanted children in this world as it is.

The gay lifestyle will never end because heterosexual couples keep having gay babies :) You all might as well buckle down and get used to it.

Jared, I think Rebecca was right on the money. There are plenty of horrible heterosexual couples raising children and yet, it seems there are not quite as many voices condemning the parenting of these kinds of couples as there are condemning homosexual couples. To a child, love is the most important thing and plenty of them are out there living with heterosexual couples and never get love. If a homosexual couple can provide love and security than I bet you I can find hundreds of kids right here in Victoria who would jump at the chance to be adopted by them.

Side note - I have experience working with children who have been damaged in some horrible way or another by their parents. there are so many people out there who are procreating away but yet, they lack the brain or the heart to decently protect and care for their children. If I died and had to choose new parents for my children I would much rather they go with a loving homosexual couple with morals, intelligence and empathy than a couple who is heterosexual but lacked these things.

There eare much more tragic things going on in this city and in the entire country than two men or two women falling in love and declaring their commitment to each other. We Christians should be most concerned with reaching out and helping those who suffer rather than condemning those who we don't want to have to sit next to in our pews.

Rebecca, that is comparing apples and oranges. What should be compared is either two horrible examples of parenting and/or two loving examples.

Wow, my last post was very long , so here's a slightly shorter one. I am just confused by one thing that I keep reading. Saying that marriage was designed for procreation and necessary for our survival as a species is fine and all, but I don't really get how it is relevant to this issue. When the laws are finally passed allowing gay marriage, they will not simultaneously ban traditional marriage or magically cause all people to be gay and/or infertile so how will procreation within heterosexual marriages be in danger?. It won't. Traditional marriage and family aren't going anywhere (at least not because of this particular issue anyway.) The people in same-sex relationships who want to marry are there and will be there, still gay, whether our state decides to recognize them or not. This isn't actually affecting those of us who are heterosexual at all. Also, as the Geek mentioned, homosexual couples can actually have children through adoption and can do it while at the same time really benefitting our society if it means that all the unwanted babies out there can actually find homes a bit more easily.

OK, forcing myself to stop for now. Peace!

1 + 1 will always = 2

Why let same sex adopt and teach these kids the wrong way of life? I do not care how "good" you think they are, it is wrong to subject a child to that type of behavior! It is and always should be a woman and a man. It is not that I am ignorant, it is the fact I know the difference between right and wrong. Man and man can not produce a child. Woman and woman can not produce a child.
Therefore, they should have no right to raise one. If you can not make one, you should not have one. Yeah, Yeah I know, what about the kids that need a family? They should be with a woman and a man that can raise them.

Gary, I do not think adultery is Ok, BUT I am not judging. My point in mentioning adultery was that if we're going to be a society that judges homosexuals by not allowing them to marry, than lets judge adulterers and other things like this judge as harshly. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality (or adultery) it is not your place to judge unless you are the one involved in the situation. So, those involved in homosexual relationships are the only ones who should be able to decide whether or not marriage is Ok for them. Furthermore, I would really be a hypocrite if I actually attempted to judge someone for committing adultery because as I mentioned in an earlier post, I myself have committed that sin, therefore if I am going to judge anyone it would only be myself!.

I also feel that if people feel it is OK to judge homosexuals by not allowing them the right to marry on the basis that their lifestyle is against God, then my sin puts me against God too; therefore, I should not have been allowed to remarry either and in fact, according to the bible, I should be stoned. Of course those who know the bible know that Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I believe His statement extends to the homosexual issue as well.

It is interesting to me, Gary, that you decided to pick out one small thing I said in order to try to accuse me of judging. Had you read my many posts, I think you would have gotten my point. How is a committed, consensual, loving homosexual couple getting married affecting the rest of us? It's not. Laws against murder, rape, robbery etc. - of course I agree with those because these involve inflicting actual harm on other people. Laws barring certain people from marriage for no reason other than that it makes other people uncomfortable, well I do not think this is fair. As far as adultery, it is actually a much more severe sin than simply being a homosexual could ever be because by committing adultery, people do inflict emotional harm on others; being in a consenting homosexual relationship does not affect or harm anyone else.

And of course, those who disagree with me may say that the children involved in these relationships could be psychologically or morally damaged but studies show that this is not a fact. I personally worry far more about the many children in the country living in unstable households with absentee parents and suffering from many forms of neglect than I could possibly imagine worrying about the "tragedy" of children being raised by two loving, stable parents who happen to be of the same sex.

After lurking on this thread and making a few comments (not at the same level of intellect as most other posters) I may have had one of those epiphanys that look like a giant megalith.

Maybe soceity is not deteriorating as much as it is evolving? Change in most cases is not good or bad, it is just the perception of the viewer based on what makes them happy/sad.

Being raised by people who care about you is much more important than being raised by one male and one female. I have a friend from school who is married - to another woman - and they are doing a wonderful job of raising their son. He was adopted. I think adoption is pro-life in action! Most people think that holding a sign or fighting is what makes you pro-life, but I have much respect for people who live it, by choosing it. If "adoption is the better option" then same-sex couples could help, in that capacity.

newcowboyintown, why would you be in big trouble? All marriages may not have children, but all children are generated naturally by a male and female. I start with assumption that each person is good btw.

THEgeek, Of course you love your family, I would be highly concerned if you didn't.

This is where we begin to see some of the differences in the rearing of children. As I said, I am sure each of you love your children. But there are unique differences between same sex couples and heterosexual couples. The example of a mother and father are natural tendencies found in marriage and are needed for the common good of society. When a child grows up and enters the world, he will find that his relationships will always be between two different people, males and females.

Just came to mind - if having children is necessary - my second wife and I are in big trouble - both of us have had health issues preventing us from having children. Just a another case where placing the fences to close together puts a lot of good people on the outside looking in.

I believe all of us will someday answer to God for our actions - all of them. Loving my neighbors and friends, including those that may be gay seems to be what the Word teaches me more than anything. Do I condone gay relationships - no - do I condemn, badger, and try to force gay friends into submission - no. I know gay individuals that have come to know Jesus Christ in a personal way and have changed and are no longer living in a gay lifestyle. But not because I pounded on them until they gave in.

We bring others closer to understanding, accepting and loving God by loving that person.

Morning Jared... I'm wiped out today too. Long night for me as well, but it was good.

I can't disagree with much of what you said to be honest. I don't however see where your points would disqualify gay people from marriage.

One thing... You said...

[However, because of the relationship you are in now, having children is no longer possible.]

While it is true that biologically my partner and I will NOT be making any children (sidenote: i have relatives male/female couple who are also unable to procreate biologically), it is entirely possible for us to have children. Adoption is always a discussion and option. A WONDERFUL woman we know who takes in foster kids and often times ends up adopting them has encouraged us to do so. She is very involved in foster care and laments the lack of good people who are willing to take care of unwanted children.

Too, we have had many female close friends over the years who have offered to surrogate a child for us. Up to this point, we've chosen not to for a plethora of reasons. But it is not outside the realm of possibility.

So my home and family is a loving union of two people, who live, work and pay taxes that is fully capable of bringing children into the world and/or raising the unwanted ones that exist already. Why does my home not meet the requirements for marriage? Especially in light of the Webster's Dictionary definition(s) of marriage, which we all know is the final word in any good debate!!! ;)

THEgeek, good morning. I hope you rested well. Me? Only after battling a 3 year old to sleep. ;)

You ask: "'the state doesn't make laws regarding marriage due to rearing children, just generating them.'" Is that the case?

I would say both. Society must continue. Nature has determined that when a male and female come together an offspring is the fruit. For a healthy society, having children and raising them is necessary.

I understand you have children. I am sure you love them. As a parent, you are afforded the same protections as any parent as it comes to raising children. If you are unjustly treated as a parent, then there is a problem. I, like I am sure you do, take parenting very seriously. I make my case when I see my parental rights being violated.

But that is one aspect of a healthy society (healthy I am using as "growing" and "sustaining"). Prior to raising children, a person needs to be able to have children. You have mentioned that you have children now. However, because of the relationship you are in now, having children is no longer possible.

Regarding procreation being the end-all-be-all, I would agree. Sexual intercourse is designed for two purposes, unity and procreation.

Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (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 b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Webster's dictionary

Seems man has all ready defined the term marriage.

Writein,

My apologies, there is a lot of traffic on this thread.

1) Can you please tell me which parts of society had been deteriorated since 1960?

The gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically.

2) What do you believe causes such a deterioration ?

Failed government policy to tackle poverty, a failing welfare state, a lack of genuine interest to help the real poverty in this country, not just the middle classes.

3) What is the difference in traditional marriage between 1970’s and today?

Dowry values have plummeted. Other than that, I don't know.

4) Can you guess how many broken homes were they in 1960 and today?

No, can you guess how many broken homes are directly caused by homosexuality?

5) Now allow me to bring gay marriage back to this and to your statement towards MaryAnn. How do you know society won’t further deteriorate?

If it does it would need to be directly attributable to legalizing gay marriage in order to prove a causal link - how would one go about measuring such a deterioration?

6) An Asian nation (China) have lopped sided sex radio which cause problems in that society. How peaceful and normal would that society be if it practice natural law?

What natural law are you referring to? If you mean unadulterated biological reproduction then I would say their population would start to place an overly large burden on infrastructure, welfare, pollution, healthcare systems, etc. causing the budding economic powerhouse to slow in economic growth leading to a deterioration in manufacturing output and thus affecting the US economy.

Hope that answers all of your questions tonight.

Dear Writein I would like to offer a ansere if you dont mind, but for now its bed time.

Thanks GW

Zug zug? (movie reference)

Writein, I don't understand your point? Are you insinuating that homosexuals are responsible for the high divorce rate & single parent homes? I don't see the parallel...but maybe my math is off...I'm sure 7 is the common denominator & that will explain everything!

I had those zoink & zoog ads too...not sure what they are.....maybe they are subliminal gay messages......

Kyle.

I wonder if you are avoiding my questions or didn't see them. Is it because I can debate this issue without using Christianity, Religion, or the classical social conservative talking points.

So I shall ask you again.

1) Can you please tell me which parts of society had been deteriorated since 1960?

2) What do you believe causes such a deterioration ?

3) What is the difference in traditional marriage between 1970’s and today?

4) Can you guess how many broken homes were they in 1960 and today?

5) Now allow me to bring gay marriage back to this and to your statement towards MaryAnn. How do you know society won’t further deteriorate?

6) An Asian nation (China) have lopped sided sex radio which cause problems in that society. How peaceful and normal would that society be if it practice natural law?

I’ll wait respectfully for your reply.

There are numerous ads whenever I visit on this story. I had Government courses ads, books about the constitutional debates, gay rights, gay dating, and politcal ads. Now I have an ad for Zook.com. So cut Gary some slack here.

My ads are for the Luling Thump and Zoinky Deals. What does that say ......???? Boring Hetero?

lol....I don't have gay ads.....all the ads on this thread have been hetero dating sites.....guess you are giving yourself away Gary....I suggest you hop off the gay porn sites!

Gary, the Google ads are determined by the words in the letter to the editor. I remember when I wrote a post and mentioned the Breyer horses that I played with as a child. The Google ads on that page were of Breyer horses! I thought that was cool. =D

Dear Vicad if you are responsible for running these gay ads on this site I would like to kindly remind you of what Judas did to Jesus because there was money to be gained. If you are not guilty then please for give me for my evil surmising. On these comments there are always the option to flag that coment. I am flaging the gay ads. A big thankyou for removing the blasphemous statements concerning Jesus wardrobs.

God Bless GW

Katasong bird So its not verbal stones its verbal love. Thanks to Kathy & others that are making a stand. When we stand for nothing we will usually fall for anything.

Gary W

Katasongbird you said adultry is not ok, explain to me how that you are not judging?? The fact are that it is not up to us to decide who is going to hell & who is going to heaven. Any normal person or Christian must judge every day between what is right & wrong, what is acceptable & what is clean etc. You should warn me of my errors if you care for me & I must do the same. But my final destination is not up to you & vice versa.

Those old laws are still very much in affect, The principles that the they speak of are still carried out
by the laws of god that do not change. When a son is rebellious or a person is unfaithful they experience a death, it literal means separation from God, if they stay in that condition they will wind up in the lake of fire, The only difference is that we today do not carry out the death sentence on people. We are not under a Godly king that was anointed by Gods prophet. I am sure that that is a relife to some of you.

G White

"'parkpork' (a name which I must admit makes me chuckle in light of the discussion and certain local memes) illustrates my point precisely.".........................that made me LOL....thanks, I needed a good laugh today!

Jared please clear something up for me because I don't think I fully understood your last post completely... It's late in the day so I blame a lack of caffeine.

You say:
"[being a good parent] is a very important aspect of marriage and family, it is not the only one. . . .So what does marriage of a man and woman have to do with the common good that the State cares so much for that it makes laws protecting it? I would have to say that it is for the procreation of offspring for society."

I parsed that up a little for brevity, but I understood what you said as 'the state doesn't make laws regarding marriage due to rearing children, just generating them.' Is that the case?

First, I must say that I don't subscribe to the belief that procreation is the end-all-be-all of marriage... But that's a different matter. But I fail to see a societal distinction between 'procreating' and 'raising kids.'

Help me understand what you meant because I'm sure I'm just not reading it correctly.

I'd argue that raising kids is vital to building society. And that since gay relationships are capable of (and in fact ARE) raising kids that their relationships should be granted protected status for the sake of those families (among other reasons.)

Newcowboyintown - yeah noone, showed up! Thanks for your part in that. Now if everyone could just stop throwing verbal stones at gay people, we'll be a'ight!

I've got no stones to throw.

Mike,
Is this another one of your expertise, I’m surprised you could even look it up, much less understand it. It has a whole hell of a lot to do with the issue at hand. The liberal that you are does not surprise me of your stupid comment.

katasongbird - I doubt anyone showed up at your stoning today - the Word also says that those without sin may cast the first stone. I didn't bother coming - cause I couldn't have cast any stones.

Kyle, you have been throwing around "blatantly" blatantly a lot today. I remember in class one day, I used the phrase, "That is a blatantly false." The students questioned me, "What other kind of false is there?"

Ciao.

THEgeek, sorry it has taken a few comments between this to reply ;). I am also grateful for your considerate response and treating those with different thoughts with respect. As a wise professor of mine repeated time and again, "We can disagree and be friends." Hopefully, with open discussion and charity, we can treat each other with the dignity any person deserves.

I have no doubt that you are a wonderful and loving parent. Whereas this is a very important aspect of marriage and family, it is not the only one. I may say that it is not the chief one that the State is concerned with. The State generally makes laws regarding the public good, what I would call the common good. That is why I would say that the State will not make laws regarding gluttony as mentioned earlier. If it becomes a common good issue, I would expect the State to step in.

So what does marriage of a man and woman have to do with the common good that the State cares so much for that it makes laws protecting it? I would have to say that it is for the procreation of offspring for society. If it were just about heterosexual relationships because of the way people have intercourse or who they love, it would have protections for adultery, fornication, etc. But these don't exist because these do not bring forth children in a marriage. I don't think it has any to do with discrimination based on orientation for it is quite clear to me that would be unjust.

THEgeek, btw, I am the geek. It is me with my nose in a book most of the time :)

The argument was not about the codified laws of the United States..... maryann and I were discussing nature's laws (those we inherit as human beings) as opposed to legislative(positive) laws..... It was not a discussion of a cut and paste of "jurisprudence" from Wikipedia..... Context is everything.

Mike,

We are governed by jurisprudence,characterized by the idea that law is best understood by studying its historical development, and that the growth of law is determined by the customs and habits of the people…

"But it certainly is not barbaric."

Now that is blatantly false. Do we need another quotathon?

Numbers 31:

"Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

2 Kings 2:

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria."

Deuteronomy 21:

"18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

One could go on and on...

lmao...yes you're fat kathryn haha

What ever happened to that eye offending thee, pluck it out? Did God want us to pluck out an eye?

-Katasongbird

The bible might be archaic. But it certainly is not barbaric. You did make your point though.

Jesus is our light, and as long as we follow his word, we are right. When you say I have big sausage-like fingers, are you saying I am fat? That's awfully judgmental of you and presumptuous. I am very fit.

Oops! Sorry that last comment posted twice.

Kathrynrey - LOL! No, it's not OK, but since you are citing certain barbaric portions of the Bible as cause to not agree with accepting homosexuality - a point of view that I find extreme, I posted my own extreme example of what might happen to punish me (and many others) for sins such as adultery if we all thought this way.

My point is that there are many extreme examples in the bible of punishments for sin but I believe that Jesus came to show us grace and love. Had he not come, we would possibly still be punishing people in violent ways and casting ourselves as judges. Yes, we should do our best to repent for our sin but again, it is NOT up to humans to judge others. You say you do not point fingers at gays and lesbians but I see most of your comments as big sausage-like fingers pointing menacingly at homosexuals and those who actually show Christian love and grace to them.

Kathrynrey - LOL! No, it's not OK, but since you are citing certain barbaric portions of the Bible as cause to not agree with accepting homosexuality - a point of view that I find extreme, I posted my own extreme example of what might happen to punish me (and many others) for sins such as adultery if we all thought this way.

My point is that there are many extreme examples in the bible of punishments for sin but I believe that Jesus came to show us grace and love. Had he not come, we would possibly still be punishing people in violent ways and casting ourselves as judges. Yes, we should do our bess to repent for our sin but again, it is NOT up to humans to judge others. You say you do not point fingers at gays and lesbians but I see most of your comments as big sausage-like fingers pointing menacingly at homosexuals and those who actually show love and grace to them by wanting to allow them, as fellow people, to have rights.

-Katasongbird

Are you saying adultery is okay? I'm confused.

Don't forget to bring the rebellious and stubborn children. ;)

You are cordially invited to a public stoning in front of the courthouse today at 3:00 pm.

Featuring - me.

Reason - adultery.

This is the appropriate punishment according to the Old Testament and there is no way around God's law, so come on down!

Refreshments to be served afterward.

Kathrynrey,

"They shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Really? Do people believe this is worthy of a death sentance? And we call other religions barbaric? How has that stoneing thingie worked for ya?

Donkeys? Now, that ain't right...:-)

maryann

Back to your original post,I agree, to some, this issue is about"redefining marriage as it stands in this country as a union between one man and one woman. "....But that's not all it is to staunch conservative Ted Olson. He sees it as a civil rights violation and illegally disallowing a basic principle in our nation's commitment to equal rights.

Marriage is a civil union and in some cases a religious sacrament.... This argument is also about visitation rights and the right to file and they married filing joint return.
That's it, unless you have some questions.

Have a great day

katasongbird -

People like to call it 'judging.' There's no judging. I don't point fingers at people who are gay or lesbian. I'm just stating the truth of the bible. There's no way around God's law.

kathrynrey,

Come on! Taking the Bible literally is so 500AD!

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
— 1 Samuel 15:3

My point in using "barren" was to be a little harsh in order to demonstrate how harsh it is to judge homosexuals and to withhold their right to marry. If we won't allow homosexuals to marry because they can't procreate then it makes sense that those who are barren are not worthy to marry either, right?

I read recently that intolerance of others increases as a person demands tolerance of their own beliefs. I believe that is probably true.

kathrynrey - did you read any of the Geek's comments? As he said, he tried to change and it caused depression and unfulfillment. Why would Christians want to force those feelings on anyone? And why are we so concerned with sins of others? We should worry about ourselves and who WE are to God.

Katasongbird -

Couples who cannot have children are not sinning. That's the difference. Barren is such a harsh word to use. You could say infertile instead.

Katasongbird -

I'm glad you agree that it is a sin. The problem is that someone who considers themselves homosexual must repent for their sins and change their ways. People who considers themselves homosexual often stay homosexual.

Why would anyone confuse me with you? Why does that bother you?

kathrynrey - I suppose we should all have harsh judgment for all the barren couples out there too. They should just not be allowed to marry if they can't produce children!

Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.”

How can you be fruitful and multiply if you cannot reproduce. Doesn't make sense. That's why the Bible says this. It applies to lesbians too.

kathrynrey - yes according to the bible it is a sin. I meant that due to my own personal experience with loving, decent people who happen to be homosexuals who have struggled all of their lives, it is hard for me to judge them or see them as wrong. I will leave the judgment up to God.

Also, I disagree with you so completely and it really bothers me that your name must be Kathryn - that is my name too - same spelling - and my last name begins with an R. No offense, but I'm hoping noone thinks you are me.

Speaking of sin, why is man, the only rational animal, is the only creature that will kill for money?

As the same-sex marrige debate rages I hear so many that appear to wish that those that do not meet their moral standards of human relations would just "go away". Some of the kindest, most caring people I have met in my life treated folks ith respect and dignity because it was the right thing to do, not because of what others thought.

kathrynrey,

What about lesbians?

One more thing - in response to the original letter. I fully support gay marriage and I do not see why opponents of it constantly bring up polygamy, incestual marriages, minor marriage etc. as if these are all the same. While yes, I am sure that those who want these types of unions will use any gains in the same-sex marriage fight to try to strengthen their own cause, that does not make all alternative unions the same.

Also, I do not agree with Mary Ann that the original story about the lesbian couple was biased. I do not feel that the reporter stated how they actually felt about the subject, they simply reported on people living in our community dealing with an issue that affects people across the nation.

katasongbird -

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

It's plain and clear as day. The Bible says it's wrong. It doesn't matter what man thinks. It matters what God has written.

maryann

I see your very clear position but we're still governed by positive law not natural law.

I can argue this issue as a misuse of positive law. I don't think human issues such as gay marriage, individual or civil rights should be an issue settled at the ballot box. California's proposition 8 will be settled int he courts, as it should be.

I think it's a misuse of positive law for the Federal government to be defining marriage.

Natural moral law and natural legal law don't always coincide because natural law is subjective. This thread is about gay marriage ,so that is just one of the reasons that I won't go into great detail. But you really can't define natural law in a sentence or two because natural law is not to be confused with natural other of things or the scientific definition. The definition in itself is very complex ,unless your mind is already made up.

Do really think 6 billion people are on the same page on "natural law?"

I simply must comment though I do this knowing that I will be unable to sway the minds of those on here who are:
a)closeminded
b)ignorant
c)judgmental "Christians"
or
d)all of the above

First of all, I am a Christian, meaning that I am a follower of Christ. Because of this, I am unable to overlook the fact that He wants us to love others and that it is not our job to judge others' sins. This is why I get so passionately upset when I see other so-called Christians who seem intent on tossing love aside and becoming judges rather than brothers and sisters in Christ.

kathrynrey - life is not a simple black and white thing. I know many Christian homosexuals who are doing their best to follow God's word which according to your post is all you think we need to do in order to magically banish homosexuality from the world.

It makes me so very sad that many of my fellow Christians use the bible and their beliefs to further drive others from the church rather than showing them love so that they may feel that they can have grace in their lives too.

I do not actually believe that homosexuality itself is a sin because I have known many homosexuals who have told me of their struggles with it from a very early age and that like the Geek, they tried to be "normal" and failed. But even if it is a sin, we are all sinners! How are my sins not just as bad as theirs? Imagine how hard it would be if your sin was made public simply because it wasn't as easy to hide as so many others. A gay person's "sin" must either be completely buried so that they are forced to live a lie, or they can be true to themselves but risk facing judgment and ridicule every day. I can't help but feel that my own sins are so much worse than the "sin" of homosexuals who are born that way. I am particularly put off when those who are anti-gay say that homosexuality is "chosen." I do not think this is true, I do however think that many sins are a choice. For instance, if I had to "come out" with sins I have committed like that I cheated on my first husband with my current husband or any of the many sins I have committed in my lifetime, you would see that those are all things I have chosen. My sin is not acceptable to God and it is something I am unable to take back but yet I know taht God loves me and forgives me. Why do Christians act like homosexuals aren't worthy of the same love and forgiveness? If we are going to embrace judgment of homosexuals then let me be judged too; put a scarlet A on my chest and let me never forget that I am a sinner and therefore unworthy.

To the Geek - I loved your arguments - very well-put!

Sorry, holeinone, but, seriously? Who are you to criticize someone? You're acting like you're better than someone else. Are you not?

maryann, who are you quoting? saying that humans are the only rational beings is a little funny. actually i think humans are often the least rational of all in the animal kingdom.

That should be, "man's faulty interpretation of it is."

Geek, I found this :"The moral law is called "natural law" because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the "laws of nature," they have in mind physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics."

There's a lot more to it, and it's interesting. Adios.

Mike, natural law isn't subjective, but man's interpretation of it is.

Natural law is the law of nature. That's God's law.

What is this 'natural law' and where can I get a copy? Does Hastings carry it? That should be required reading so we could all get on the same page. ;)

Natural law is subjective because inherited rights are not clearly defined as they are in legislation... We live in a country that is governed by positive law not natural law because it is for ALL the people.

The fraction was an all that important, it was factual meaning behind the comparison. One has very little to do with the other.

Kyle.

May I ask you a set of questions. Lets take gay marriage and put it to the side for the moment .

1) Can you please tell me what parts of society has been deteriorated since 1960?

2) What do you believe causes such a deterioration ?

3) What is the difference in traditional marriage between 1970’s and today?

4) Can you take me how many broken homes were they in 1960 and today.

5) Now allow me to bring gay marriage back to this and to your statement towards MaryAnn. How do you know society won’t further deteriorate?

6) An Asian nation have lopped sided sex radio which cause problems in that society. How peaceful and normal would that society be if it practice natural law?
I’ll wait respectfully for your reply.

Sorry, Mike, I wasn't being "sneaky" and trying to pull anything with my misstatement of the fraction!

Mike, it has everything to do with redefining marriage as it stands in this country as a union between one man and one woman.

I use the bible to determine how I should live my life in every walk of my life. This debate about homosexual marriage could be put to rest if we just lived by the word. Guys like TheGEEK do not seem to understand that. His arguments are so narrow minded.

Kyle, what you're proposing is YOUR whimisical construction of truth, which is relative, and changes with the current cultural trends and fads.

Marriage is based upon the betterment and support of the spouses as well as bringing children into the world. That is inherent in the nature of man and woman.

When you break the natural law, Kyle, it comes back to break the individual or society. ;-}

maryann,I disagree slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person to bring up the voting power of slave owners relative to citizens who lived in free states. Since the south considered them property; they shouldn't have been counted at all... That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

As for the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) is the Federal government defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_...

I think DOMA is being rightfully challenge in the courts because under our constitution the Federal government cannot take a position on marriage.

http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/201...

A robe isn't a dress then? Who decides what is acceptable to wear? Are clothing values universal across the globe? Who, 2011, uses the Bible to determine their wardrobe?

Seriously...

the Geek''

Thanks for reply to my question about the sin issue. You did not fully answer my question, which you explained you would rather not go that far in this open dialogue. But this is the question that I would like to present to any born again Christian, who is an active homosexual, that would be willing to answer me how they deal with the sin on a on going basis.

Before I became a born again Christian, I regularly committed sins of impurity, drunkeness, infidelity, and never thought to much about it because I new I was lost and going to hell. But, when I accepted Christ and received the Holy Spirit, I became convicted of my sins (daily) and have to ask God often to forgive me and help me avoid these sinful thoughts, words, and actions.

So, I'm just curious how an (active) homosexual that is a born again Christian, mentally deals with this in his/her walk with God. Or, do most just say God's word must be wrong and who I am and what I do with my sexual life is not sinful? What would be your opinion?

Thanks, Beakus

The Geek,

maybe you should check into "historical jurisprudence."

That's just ignorant. Jesus wore sandals and a robe. That was the fashion of their day!

Did he wear slacks and a button up?

Jesus did not wear a dress. That was never mentioned in the bible.

"You mentioned Doma. When laws were passed declaring that African Americans were 5/8 of a person, the law did not reflect the true nature of the human individual. Even thought the law was there, it reflected a falsehood."

My point exactly, maryann. DOMA does not reflect the truly infinite nature of positive aspects of the human individual. At the heart of the matter you seem to believe that a biological need to reproduce should be the core foundation of what it called marriage. I say marriage can and should embrace pluralism, equality and common sense and be none the worse for achieving such a noble goal.

Heterosexuals will continue to reproduce within this enlarged institution of marriage with no impediment to their overactive loins or value system.

I cannot believe how many crossdressers there are here in Victoria. I just do not think it is right!! If Jesus wanted us to be crossdressers, then he would have crossdressed too!

Kyle, heterosexuals don't define marriage.

Nature defines marriage. We just describe it based upon what it is. That definition can be truthful or can be distorted, just as any definition can be.

You mentioned Doma. When laws were passed declaring that African Americans were 5/8 of a person, the law did not reflect the true nature of the human individual. Even thought the law was there, it reflected a falsehood.

Hello Geek, thanks for being up front here about issues. Nor am I able to take each of your points and discuss them one by one as time is limited and I have a few obligations.

But I'll touch on a few.

First off, I said I'm trying to understand your point of view. You should realize better than I that some people really don't care about your point of view (or mine). I certainly realize that some are here (from both sides) to mock and slur. That doesn't move the discussion along or help to come to any resolutions. So, I am trying to be understand without putting you off in any way.

You state, "Gay people don't want to redefine marriage." I think that is your perception, but it's not based on the reality of marriage as it is. Marriage in the US is based on the union of a man and a woman, to the betterment and help of the spouses and for raising children.

Again, I think that homosexuals have right to live as they choose, they don't have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

As I stated, if your partner needs power of attorney, I hope that's taken care of. If you need medical proxies, that should be done.

But bringing about a social experiement that is not based on truth found in nature is not what the majority of Americans want. Even in CA Proposition 8 was voted down, and homosexual marriage was also voted down in liberal New York.

You talk about people discussing your "right" to get married, I assume, as being abhorrent. One could also say that one changing the definition of marriage to include unnatural pairings and force that on society to accept as the norm, particularly for parenting, is abhorrent.

I am sorry that your orientation was treated as a "sin" by your church. That should not happen. I believe that being a homosexual is not a sin. God loves you and me immensly. But I do believe that homosexual acts, along with sex outside of marriage, are sinful. That's not meant to be disrespectful.

You talk about being rejected because of homosexual acts, well, those who speak about sex outside of marriage being sinful also get pelted for that statement. Just wait for the comments here.

Then you and I will have something more in common!

Geek, I sincerely am trying to understand your point of view and position. I wish you no ill will. I'm glad that we can talk with at least a modicum of civility.

I know this topic will come up more in the future. Hope we can discuss again.

Kyle,
sorry I didn’t show a link, common knowledge, I don’t know what the heck your point was to begin with.

Thanks Red Rage... :) And thanks for the support! I believe like you do! I know that progress cannot be halted. It comes.

I will say, that I KNOW I won't change THEIR minds. Hopefully, I can grant some perspective, however. And there are other people who read. I speak for the silent.

As my mom says, they can't understand fully until it touches them. She hopes it never does. I hope it does immediately. Maybe she is a better person than I am. :)

Truly my goal isn't to change people's minds, but to hopefully foster a better understanding. As someone who has quite literally been on both sides of this debate I feel that my perspective is unique.

cont...

What are the criterion for marriage? Frankly, that's above my pay-grade. And it's above yours. We must respect the right of the sovereign individual to CHOOSE how to organize their personal lives. That is very Libertarian of me, I know, so it's a little out of character. Reason and choice must be first when discussing marriage. And because humanity is diverse to the infinite, it is inappropriate to define marriage based on one particular belief set.

Does it sick me out to think of a brother and sister being in love? Without a doubt. Does it gross me out to think of one man with a whole harem full of women? More than you can possibly imagine.

But grown people get to choose for themselves. That's what Liberty means. And as long as you are not trampling on my or someone else's rights, you have the liberty to do and say what you choose to do.

The benefits of individuals grouping up to form family groups (even unconventional ones) are measurable to society at large. The law should recognize and protect these benefits.

And as a matter of confession... I was never a debate student so your ~ad hominem propecia~ stuff is a little wasted on me. :) I just calls em likes I sees em!

Jared...

First off... Hi! :) I read a lot of what you write and although I disagree with most of your stances (most not all) I admire the way you present yourself. Anywho...to the discussion...

You and I say:

["To state that if marriage includes loving same sex partners, then it will also include (insert any combination you can think of here) is a fallacy in logic." This is not a logical fallacy.] Yes, it is. See how that works? ;)

I kid... On to the meat to that potato...

You also say:

[Nobody here questions you are a good person trying like the rest of us to seek happiness. That is not the issue. The issue is marriage. What is the definition of marriage? Marriage must have certain characteristics that make it so, what are those?]

My point was not to say that I'm a good person and that therefore I should get what I want. I've been clear that what other think of me is none my business.

I'm saying I invest in society. My union is a benefit to society. When one invests one expects a return. I do not think it is good policy to force gay people to jump through legal hoops (that ultimately end up NOT mattering in court) in order to make a public statement about a private relationship. It makes no sense. Gay unions should be afforded the same status as straight ones in the eyes of the law of the land. Gay people DO raise children. Often times the children gay people raise are the ones that the straights cast off. Or they are from previous relationships. Or they are from surrogates. But the point is there are MANY circumstances in which gay people have children to raise and that family would benefit from some social recognition. The children would benefit. To tell that family, either directly with unkind statements or indirectly with policies that indicate such, that they are less then another family hurts all of society. Elevating them to equal status, however, encourages community and further investment in civilization as we go forward.

cont...

TheGeek,

You're doing a great job at explaining some things, but you'll never get your point across. People like Maryann and Jared are already firm in their beliefs no matter how much BS is put into their reasoning.

Luckily, their way of thinking is a dying breed. Gay rights will come. It just has to work its way through the system like everything else in our past has.

Jared, you state that "Heterosexuals don't define marriage."

That's just simply untrue, one example of blatant definition of said institution came with the Defense Of Marriage Act - federal law signed into being by Bill Clinton.

It clearly defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman."

Once you institutionalize marriage with that definition it becomes easier to prolong the misguided argument that marriage should follow natural law.

Beakus:

Good questions! I won't however answer them fully, not because I can't, but because I've probably shared more than is appropriate and me waxing eschatological up in this joint is I think further than I'm willing to go.

I think you can glean from my other posts in other threads where I stand on the sin issue. If I knew you IRL I'd be pleased to discuss it at length, but here...not so much.

I would like to turn your question on its ear a little because there is something about it that I find strange in from the Christian's perspective. Despite their cries to the contrary, Homosexuality as a sin gets entirely too much weight and attention [from the church].

For instance (and speaking of weight), obesity in this country is epic and out of control. The Bible has much more to say about gluttony than about homosexuality. When you see an overweight person in your church do you ask them:

"After all your years of struggle with diet and the church, and after you decided to "be fat", how have you reconciled the sin issue? Do you think that God no longer looks at gluttony as sin? What does the born again Christian glutton that cannot, or will not, give up the active gluttonous lifestyle believe the God of the bible thinks of this decision? Granted, He still loves you just as much as anyone else, and living the active gluttonous lifestyle will not keep anyone out of heaven, lack of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ has that distinction."

I chose gluttony as an example but there are ample 'sins' (pun not intended) with which one can exchange the word in your questions. Do you hope to create laws that keep fat people from choosing to eat at McDonald's like the thin people do? Or to keep gossipy people from owning cell phones like the pious? Or to keep envious people from watching 'The Real Housewives of...'? Well, you see my point.

The debate is not about what is sin or not sin. The debate is not about what is natural or unnatural.

The debate is whether one group of people have the right to decide that their perspective is reality and then impose it on the rest of the community, country, or world.

Thank you for the question though, Beakus. I have to admit that it is nice to be asked rather than told. :)

theGeek, "To state that if marriage includes loving same sex partners, then it will also include (insert any combination you can think of here) is a fallacy in logic." This is not a logical fallacy. I know what you are trying to say, but it is not what MaryAnn was stating from what I can find. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, however, MarryAnn's point mentioned not that "It will lead" but that some may ask "Is it not discriminating against others of different relationships?" Her statement seems quite logical, for if you redefine marriage at one point, who says where the definition stops? To claim it will stop at a certain point would be the fallacy.

I propose though, you offered an ad populum fallacy by listing all the good things you do. Nobody here questions you are a good person trying like the rest of us to seek happiness. That is not the issue. The issue is marriage. What is the definition of marriage? Marriage must have certain characteristics that make it so, what are those?

Kyle, "Heterosexuals have a right to live as they chose, but the don't have the right to define marriage for the rest of society." Heterosexuals don't define marriage. Their must be some idea of marriage that you must be trying to compare what is rightful. If not natural law, what would you propose that we use to measure what anything is right?

Hicktoria, "falling out of love is not SAD it is life. It happens all of the time." Mea culpa. Love is a decision, it is choosing what is good for the other. When I say it is sad, I mean to say that people choose their own interest at times and forgo other responsibilities that are due to others. A father abandoning his family because he chooses not to love them is sad.

the Geek..

After all your years of struggle with counseling and the church, and after you decided to "come out", how have you reconciled the sin issue? Do you think that God no longer looks at homosexuality as sin? What does the born again Christian homosexual that cannot, or will not, give up the active homosexual lifestyle believe the God of the bible thinks of this decision? Granted, He still loves you just as much as anyone else, and living the active homosexual lifestyle will not keep anyone out of heaven, lack of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ has that distinction.

itisi said: "Homosexuality has been around most likely since the beginning of time, but it has always been viewed as lewd behavior, because it is not natural. I don’t think you can argue that point, but then again who knows."

Try Ancient Greece where homosexuality was essentially institutionalized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexu...

Geek,

With all due respect, I can respect you as a person, but I cannot respect homosexual behavior.

You use the word “natural” there is no biological science to support that theory. When a male and female meet that in its self is natural, because they can evolve. Gays cannot evolve only in likeness. There is simple no natural biological path to evolve. The percentage of gays will remain the same, because you cannot evolve without offspring.

Homosexuality has been around most likely since the beginning of time, but it has always been viewed as lewd behavior, because it is not natural. I don’t think you can argue that point, but then again who knows.

Marriage of two men or women violates the principle within the body of marriage. You stated that you do everything normal people do, which is true, but you have clearly stated the need for other benefits that derive from marriage, and that is monetary gain. Marriage is not based on monetary gain. Marriage of a man and woman, which is to evolve and grow together as one, and create offspring to carry the name of family, so there children can evolve, it is a signature written in stone. Gays that use the word marriage is very disturbing to me, because it destroys the basic principle of marriage which has always been with one man one woman. There is no science to prove your theory, but when you can prove to me that you popped out the shut a month early, and screamed I’m gay, I’ll hold that thought.

-_-

'parkpork' (a name which I must admit makes me chuckle in light of the discussion and certain local memes) illustrates my point precisely. Some people will not ever get it. These people should not be allowed to decide for the rest of us.

To Tobacco, Mr. Pork! :)

Ok... Maryann you really don't understand my point of view?

I'm an American citizen who pays taxes, volunteers in my community, invests in the future of Victoria's youth, donates to local and national charities, stops for animals on the side of the road and generally works hard to make the world a better and safer place day after day...

I am also ridiculed, threatened, unaccepted, looked down upon and NOT ALLOWED to legally bind my life with the person with whom I choose to do it. This state is outright hostile in some instances when it comes to homosexuality.

What's not to understand?

Gay people don't want to redefine marriage. We want to take part in what it already is. I'm not really in favor of Civil Unions, as I think that it is basically playing a semantical game to appease an illogical contingent on both sides of the argument. However, Civil Unions are not even allowed in many states. I'm curious what your thoughts on that type of arrangement are?

I'm not going to pick apart your arguments one by one because I don't want to go too far afield, but to say that you disagree with me that homosexuality is a choice is presumptuous on your part. To use High School students who are still experimenting and discovering who they are and how they fit into the world as proof for this argument is reaching for straws.

Let me make a distinction so that it's clear. Having gay sex does not make one gay any more than having straight sex makes one straight. Behavior and orientation are two very separate things. Many gay people TRY to have hetero-normative relationships through their lives only to fail miserably because their orientation did not alter. Nor will it.

So you understand where I'm coming from, I was raised very religious and worked my tail off to be straight. I was involved in reparative therapy, counesling (both professional and pastoral), and submitted to the will of 'the church' for a really long time trying to 'overcome my sin.' The result was that I was depressed, suicidal, and wrestled with self-worth issues for a long time.

Homosexuality did not make me feel that way. The church did.

I have since accepted myself, come out, and my life is as joyous as I ever wanted it to be. There is a great peace in knowing and loving yourself. It is the greatest form of evil for one person to try to strip away another person's dignity and self-worth. And whether you realize it or not, the words of people like you do that to the gay community. The fact that my rights are a discussion by people who are not me is abhorrent.

Gary... Caustic? Really? Satirical at worst.

May I ask you a set of questions. Lets take gay marriage and put it to the side for the moment .

1) Can you please tell me what parts of society has been deteriorated since 1960?

2) What do you believe causes such a deterioration ?

3) What is the difference in traditional marriage between 1970’s and today?

4) Can you take me how many broken homes were they in 1960 and today.

5) Now allow me to bring gay marriage back to this and to your statement towards MaryAnn. How do you know society won’t further deteriorate?

^6) An Asian nation have lopped sided sex radio which cause problems in that society. How peaceful and normal would that society be if it practice natural law?

I’ll wait respectfully for your reply.

J.Williams

Remarkable it is to me that a heterosexual can tell a homosexual that he chooses to be gay. If that isn't a mark of the highest disrespect, then I'm not sure what else qualifies as such...

mary ann: "This is my position: Homosexuals have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have the right to redefine marrige for the rest of society."

My position would be the opposite - Heterosexuals have a right to live as they chose, but the don't have the right to define marriage for the rest of society.

Lobbying and legislating based on fear is a bad way to govern, and thr basis for your position seems to be backed up with loosely connected news stories and assumptions about why teenagers behave the way they do in high school.

You seem to fear change, like Jared, you seem to fear a deterioration of an institution that excludes a significant percentage of our law abiding citizenry. I believe that, once homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals, that you will find your life and society as a whole will survive without any corrosion to its core values. In my opinion, the institution of marriage will be better for it.

"Just because I dont want gays,triads incestual etc to have oficial marriages does not make me a bigot." Yes it does.

Red Rage00.

Bye????….I’m not leaving the Democratic Party just yet. Even if I did…I would be a Modern Whig member over Republican.

Gary, all of the gay healthcare professionals I work with are out of the closet, so yes, our residents are very well aware of their preference.

Many of the women in my facility prefer to have the gay males take care of them, they say they are more gentle & caring than their straight male counterparts & even some of the females.

According to Kyle, Rebecca & others the gays are marginalised,persecuted,hated,held bach,subjugated etc etc. Also denied there rights.

I hate no one & I am not hiding behind any religion. Just because I dont want gays,triads incestual etc to have oficial marriages does not make me a bigot.

I feel that a lot of gays that are depressed is not due to hate from other people but due to there own decent shame, they are unhapy with them selves because of what they are doing. the same as I would if I were doing something that my heart tells me I shouldnt be doing.

Geek if you have said these things sooner I would of had a lot more sympathy for you, most of your post before were very caustic,blasphemious etc. I think sometimes there are exceptions to the rules: crossed up genes etc.

I know of a few cases where men were just drawn like you were & God supernaturaly set them free. Dont ever think Geek that I or the Lord does not have compasion,sympathy & love for you.

Sincerely Gary White

You say no one chooses to be homosexual. I disagree and plenty of evidence for that can be seen at any large high school. We discussed orientation the other day, and I do believe that some with a homosexual orientation have not chosen it. I have seen research which argues both ways, and nothing conclusive.

Again, I am trying to understand your point of view and engage you with ideas rather than mock you.

Geek, you certainly have a right to live as you choose, but to begin an entirely new social experiment with our society and children as the guinea pigs most people are not willing to accept.

Even the VA's highly scientific poll :-} here stated that 81% of people in the area didn't think homosexual marriage should be legal, while 19% said yes. The other 1% were confused.....

Geek, if you need medical proxies for your partner, then that problem should be fixed and made more easily accessible for you. If you need to amend wills and power of attorney, homosexuals should do that.

I just don't think that marriage for the entire society should be redefined.

Hello Geek,

I am trying to understand, though I do disagree with many of your points.

You state: "It is an illogical statement to say that if boundaries are changed then boundaries will be dissolved."

My statement was that when the boundaries of marriage are moved to include homosexuals, then those who are also in loving relationships will want the same recognition and benefits.

All boundaries to marriage will not be downed in one fell swoop. But we do see that because of homosexual relationships achieving certain benefits and recognition, other groups such as polygamists want the same.

From an article in the Washington Times, "Same Sex Marriage Gives Polygamy a Legal Boost"

"The outlook for polygamy hasn’t been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.

Plural marriage remains illegal, but it’s undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives.” More significantly, it’s getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

This is my position: Homosexuals have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have the right to redefine marrige for the rest of society.

Geek, the complementarity of the sexes is natural. So is sex between those of the opposite sex. It is so natural that when not obstructed and when the spouses are healthy, the sex is fruitful.

Don't misunderstand me, marriage is for the unity and betterment of the spouses as well as protecting and raising children.

But legal marriage has been constructed in such a way to protect the fruit of the natural union of the man and woman.

If homosexual marriage is legalized in Texas, then people who strongly believe that children have a natural right to both a mother and a father will be seen silenced in the courts. The right to a child to have a parents of the opposite sex will be taken away.

Also, public schools will teach the young that sex between a man and a man is just as natural as that between a man and a woman, when biology demonstrates differently.

Groups such as the Salvation Army will be denied access to privileges unless they endorse homosexual marriage. This has already happened to the Boy Scouts in states where homosexual marriage is allowed.

Cont....

It is an illogical statement to say that if boundaries are changed then boundaries will be dissolved.

Lines are redrawn all the time. They still exist.

To state that if marriage includes loving same sex partners, then it will also include (insert any combination you can think of here) is a fallacy in logic.

To those of you who are heterosexual and taking a stand for the dignity and rights of all people, I thank you. You really and truly do not know what it means to have heterosexuals speak up for gay people, especially in a community like ours.

I'm going to go ahead and open up a little more than I should, but after days and days of this stuff on the Advocate I just can't shut up. Believe me...I've tried. I've written at least four responses to Jared's blog posts and deleted each and every one. [They were damned good if I do say so myself ;) ] I know that minds are very hard to change I feel it is inefficient to debate the subject without face to face interaction. But I digress...

I'm a gay man. I am not 'bruised and bleeding.' I have been in a loving same-sex relationship for coming up on seven years. We have pets, arguments, bills, housework, jobs, volunteer work, best friends, dinner plans, beer & pizza, video games, fights, car repairs etc etc etc... Just like all you married people. Your clarion cries to circle the wagons and protect your sacred marriage do not change how we live our lives nor the love that we have one for the other. Frankly, how you feel about me (us) just doesn't matter to me. I was once told by a sagely woman that "What someone else thinks about you is none of your business" and I believe it.

What I can't abide, however, is the codifying of policy that limits my rights.

You say that as a man I have a RIGHT to marry a woman? Been there and tried that... Oh, yes Gary, I CHOSE to be straight for a long time. Oddly, it didn't take. Was I not choosing hard enough?

The truth is NO ONE would choose to be gay. Why would they? To choose to leave the safe majority in favor of (ie) reading unwelcoming judgmental and hurtful things in the local paper about oneself is outright masochistic.

Let me repeat...

NO ONE CHOOSES TO BE HOMOSEXUAL.

If we are basing our laws on marriage on 'the natural order' then let me assure you, there is no more unnatural thing for me on planet earth than being with a woman (sexually/romantically). This is the case for all homosexuals. Their nature requires of them something different than your nature requires of you. Accept this. It is a fact.

Please consider what it means to base laws on a perception that may not be true. You perceive that being gay is unnatural. It's not always the case. And if it is not always the case then it should not be codified into our laws.

One more thing... Gary... You scare the hell out of me.

bye

It is topic like this one that makes me wanting to join the Republican Party. That’s right I said it. I believe in tradition, traditional family structure, and a value system to match. Ever since gay marriage debate begins, I always hear liberals bashing Christians and their beliefs.
I, for one, do not have to use the Bible, religion, or even God for reasons to oppose gay marriage and the full embrace of its practice. If one wants proof, then one should look at that the Sex ratio in China

My hubby and I are about to celebrate twenty years of marriage. I have observed that those in-love-feelings wax and wane over time. I don't know how we have stayed together this long, except that we both forgive often and we both put up with much! (and I have a great sense of humor) =D

Jared - falling out of love is not SAD it is life. It happens all of the time.

Kyle, by all means I agree, if a marriage is so bad that it is harming the husband/father, wife/mother, and/or child(ren), separation may be needed. Abused spouses/children by no means need to persist in a situation that is harmful.

Unfortunately, I don't know if this is always the reason for divorce. Most of the divorces I know are because the spouses "fell out love." Sad.

Let's not also forget that dysfunctional marriages that continue to persist and endure despite an obvious need for separation are also psychologically damaging to children and therefore affect me in the broader sense of society.

"Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx

How does marriage failure affect me?

Marriage failure effects are pretty easy to find. Plenty of sociological and psychological effects on the child(ren) of broken families. These affect me in a numerous ways including: inability to associate with men (given it is this sex that usualy is absent), increased poverty among single mothers which highly affects society, increased crime rate within families of absent fathers. At local level, I have had conversations with a LSW and she sees plenty of problems especially with what she calls "Missing Daddy Syndrome." Some of these problems would be present in the same-sex union relationship.

So it is not that this affects me, like "I saw that and it hurt my arm." It affects us because it will affect the children.

Bighorn, you've been around on here many a year. You don't say much, but I enjoy your comments. Thanks.

VBB, you made a very good point about other people’s marriages not affecting your marriage. One thing I like about discussing things here is that I do learn things and I think issues through more thoroughly. It’s people like you, EA, and Jared who can still make this place an arena of ideas to be discussed decently.

I agree that amid all the green-card seeking marrieds, the Brittney Spears Las-Vegas-type quickie failure marriages, and even the underground polygamists here and there in West Texas, my personal marriage is not affected. My marriage to my wonderful husband is something we work on together. Anyway…..

I’m sure many people feel the same way and are in strong marriages.

I think it’s great that you are logically consistent in supporting homosexual unions and polygamy. I admire your honesty, even though I disagree with your point.

No arbritrary lines for you!

I don’t know where you stand on the incestual unions, but one should follow through and see that they could be discriminated against as well if the definition of marriage is opened up to include homosexuals.

Marriage by nature has been in our culture based upon one man and one woman. I think changing the definition of marriage opens it up to other unions that are unnatural from the get-go. That’s one of my primary reasons for not agreeing with same-sex marriage.

As for living in the shadows, I think that one wouldn’t have to live in the shadows if one didn’t pursue unnatural actions. I know it’s not as simple as that, and much more is involved, but I do agree that no one should have to live in any shadows.

I’ll agree to disagree with you, and wish you a great summer!

Well stated, Mary Ann. The very presumption that freakish behavior is accepted as normal and wonderful was the basis of the paper's attitude.

Thank you for rejecting such.

Leslie Thanks again I ask how do you discern from a bad cross dresser to a good one. There are many other incedents where people are faced with sharing a public bathroom with a member of the oposite sex. Would you feel comfortable with having your children baby sat by a gay male. male cross dresser, a gay male with aids.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that people of all gender combinations and sexual orientations are capable of choosing to have sex that leaves them bleeding and bruised or choosing to have sex that does not leave them bleeding and bruised. That's just a matter of personal preference.

With male sex partners I would say there choices are pretty limited.

Thanks for the good wishes

VBB said: "When people are forced to live in the shadows is when bad things happen, IMO."

Absoeffinlutely - well put.

Life is too short to live in fear & wallow in shallow hatred. I choose not to attack people who have done nothing to me nor affect my life, my marriage & my family. Life is scary & difficult enough as it is, I don't need to go out of my way to make it more so.

I certainly don't understand people who hide behind their faith & belief in God to justify hating others. That is not directed at you MaryAnn as I don't believe you have hate in your heart.

lol, I agree with VBB on her last post. I don't really care if consenting adults want to marry.

Maryann....don't have a cow....I like & respect you, but if all parties involved are of legal age & sane mind, I have no issue with polygamy. When people are forced to live in the shadows is when bad things happen, IMO.

I am getting to old to mind my own business much less worry about others. If anyone is interested in marrying some cats, I have a few that I will be happy to "give away". : ) I kid!

Gary, all of the gay healthcare professionals I work with are out of the closet, so yes, our residents are very well aware of their preference.

I wouldn't let an 8yr old use a public bathroom alone period.

I do know gloves protect against Hepatitis, I don't think words will protect me from salmonella though. BTW, hepatitis is an all inclusive disease.....you can contact it from bad shell fish & blood born pathogens from both sexes & from both straight & gay....hepatitis doesn't gravitate to one group more than another.

Aids is a growing epidemic in the elderly population & amongst the younger kids....the elderly are getting hit hard these days, fastest growing group I had heard....and not because the geriatrics have turned gay. They are living longer, losing their spouses & dating again.

You really need to educate yourself about disease states & how that are transmitted.....washing hands does wonders...hot water, soap & sing happy birthday to yourself for 25 seconds will kill most germs.

Hi Gary,

I don't really want to step in to the marriage debate, but I think a little trans 101 and fact checking is in order here. The person attacked in the McDonald's bathroom was a transgender woman, not a cross-dressing gay man. A cross dresser is a person who may or may not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth and sometimes wears clothing typically associated with the opposite gender. A transgender person is someone who feels like their assigned gender doesn't really match their gender identity (the way they see themselves). In this case, the victim was declared male at birth, but now identifies as female.

A person's gender identity does not dictate their sexual orientation. For example, there are transgender men who are attracted to men, transgender men who are attracted to women, bisexual transgender men, transgender women who are attracted to men -- the combinations do go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. I have no idea what this person's sexual orientation is, nor is it any of my business.

On to the video of the McDonald's attack: the two "young girls" you mention were shown brutally beating the trans-woman, who was roughly the same size as they were. If anyone in this situation was traumatized, I would imagine it was the young woman who was physically assaulted.

As one might imagine from reading comments associated with the stories about the Wharton firefighter's widow, transgender people experience a lot of hostility in their day-to-day lives, mostly just because they exist. Public restrooms are particularly troublesome and dangerous for many people.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that people of all gender combinations and sexual orientations are capable of choosing to have sex that leaves them bleeding and bruised or choosing to have sex that does not leave them bleeding and bruised. That's just a matter of personal preference.

Hope you're having a great evening!

Leslie

Vbb, good for you that you value your marriage so strongly.

But do you think that polygamists deserve the same benefits of society and the law that all the other people you mentioned have?

If people get married for all reasons, then do you see any reason to prevent any pairings of people from getting married? This group of three want the same benefits that married couples have:

"First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the "triad."

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-an...

I work in the healthcare field & can tell you that many fine healthcare professionals are gay. Would those fine folks care to let the public know who they are so they can make a choice as to what is safe & not safe?

Crossdressers aren't interested in us females, at least not the homosexual kind. How do you know when the cross dresser is the good & decent kind???

Is it true that there are no gloves invented yet that stop certain forms of Hepititus?

someone is having some kind of sex that you seem to disapprove of. Any one should disapprove of certain types of sex that are linked to the cause of aids. To try the monkey storey on me please.

I am responsible for what I know; if I know that the cook at the restaurant is living a sexually per miscues life style normal or gay then I would try to find another place to eat. That is ONE of the reasons why we earnestly pray over our meal.

So you are perfectly comfortable with sending your 8 yr old grand daughter in to a public rest room with a full grown sexually active man wearing a dress??? You must have more faith than I have.

I'll catch up in the morning.

And as far as the "sanctity" of marriage goes.....people get married for many different reasons...love, money, green cards, to please others, legal protection, etc....whatever the reasons people get married, be them good, bad or indifferent, it does not affect MY marriage at all! The only people that can strengthen or weaken my marriage is myself & my spouse....all the married gays in the world are not going to change how I feel about MY marriage & what my marriage means legally.....I will still be married to my husband & have all the protection afforded me under the terms of my marriage.

EA, marriage is not defined by infidelity or cohabitation, it is affected by it. I am saddened to hear of your experience. Yes, I think that infidelity and cohabitation definitely weaken marriage. They even end marriage, but the definition of marriage still remains the same.

That they ruined what was once a good marriage is tragic.

You state: "As to the brother-sister question, it is doubtful that that will be an issue that will be discussed at anytime in the future."

I disagree. Already Brazil, Argentina, and Japan have done away with incest laws. And people are using homosexual relationships with legal benefits as reasons for these "odd" couplings to have legal benefits.

Switzerland has made the news with people thinking the laws are "obsolete." Jah, even in Svitzerland!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

This is the Brave New World of individual rights. It's not going away.

As for genetic research- you know that invitro and surrogacy for homosexuals, I'm sure they'll work for siblings who want children. Adoption??

All these options are open for homosexuals, Edith, they are open for other people as well.

Where will you draw the line if homosexual marriage becomes legal in Texas? Will you deny other loving couples the benefits of marriage because of "cultural taboos"?

Some of my left-leaning comrades lean kind of "straight" all of a sudden when they see where individual rights take society.

Contrary to what Gary seems to believe, gays are not wanting marriage so they can have sex. How are you comming up with these coclusions? I dont know which is worse my spelling or your comprehinsion skills.

No my wife does not wear garmets that pertain to men & I dont wear feminine apperal. My daughter was asked at school why she doesnt wear pants she asked him why he doesnt wear dresses? He was satisfied with her ansere. Now are you less scared of me?

You said you cant be concerned with who or what serves you food. Well I am & I am sharing my concerns with you BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.

Good point on the infedility threat.

Thanks Gary White

Oh Gary.....where to start with you.......I work in the healthcare field & can tell you that many fine healthcare professionals are gay. There is such a thing as universal precautions that are followed as far as personal hygeine that protects others from their gay germs. I would say that in the healthcare profession we are often in contact with people whose disease states we don't know about, these are totally straight people, who pose a health risk to all of us, gays included. Many of the women in my facility prefer to have the gay males take care of them, they say they are more gentle & caring than their straight male counterparts & even some of the females.

Have you ever been into a womens restroom? They have stalls with doors that actually lock. If a transexual/crossdresser used the bathroom I would not know she was a he unless I was spying on him/her. Actually I have been in the same restroom as a crossdresser & never realized she was a he until I saw her later...she was very pretty. Crossdressers aren't interested in us females, at least not the homosexual kind. There are plenty of straight men out there who like the feel of lace on their thigh though.

EA, one thing to clear up....Pharmacists do not touch the medications with their hands...they have counting trays, there are pill dispensers & if all else fails, gloves are worn. Don't want Pharmacists getting a reputation of being all gay & dirty. : )

As far as people serving your food, I guess you don't eat out much...think of all the uncelibate hands touching your food, cooking your food, washing the dishes, wiping down the tables, etc.....unless you are eating at a convent, odds are somewhere in the chain of events in the cooking of your food to the delivery & everywhere in between, someone is having some kind of sex that you seem to disapprove of.

Gary—

I guess you are secure in your belief that you would recognize a gay person if you were face to face with one? For you to foolishly believe that you would recognize a prostitute if you saw one is silly. And you are 100% positive your dentist or the hygienist is not gay? Or your doctor. Or his nurse. Or the pharmacist who TOUCHES your pills? The clerk who hands the bag to you (after touching it!) You are living in a fantasy world!

I’m sorry, Gary, I simply cannot be concerned with what other folks are doing sex-wise. But you sure seem to know a lot about it. Bruised and bleeding. Cross dressing. By the way—does your wife ever wear slacks? Serviceable shoes? You scare me.

Mary Ann—

I do think infidelity and co-habitation have everything to do with the definition of marriage. One is a disregard for the marriage that is; the other, a non-marriage. I am not divorced because some gay folks got ‘married’ and therefore my marriage was less valuable. I am divorced because of my husband’s infidelity. Infidelity undermined my marriage, not two gays wanting a marriage.

Although Ann Heche and Ellen De Generes were never married—they planned to, but broke up before they did—they are an example that even homosexual couples have relationship problems, too. They are not immune, and I don’t think anyone has indicated as such.

As to the brother-sister question, it is doubtful that that will be an issue that will be discussed at anytime in the future. First, there is sufficient genetic research documenting that it is not a good idea, and secondly, there are not enough brothers and sisters asking for ‘survivors’ rights. Many of those rights are already afforded family.

Contrary to what Gary seems to believe, gays are not wanting marriage so they can have sex. They want to be able to make medical and end of life decisions for someone they love. They want to have a say when the person they care about can’t speak for himself. They want survivors’ rights. Gay marriage is not about sex. Many are already having sex. Many gays, like many straights, are celibate. It is about rights.

And, I too, enjoy discussing issues with you. I have some of my best discussion with you!

Hello EA,

I really love discussing issues with you, even if we disagree. You have a great variety of ideas, and you are a straightforward kind of person.

Thanks for answering the question, even if it is that you're not sure!

I agree wholeheartedly that infidelity and cohabitating are hurting marriage and should be addressed, but that's an entirely different thread. They don't have to do with the definition of marriage, which you seem comfortable with changing in some forms.

Also: I see that those people who were joined in homosexual unions have the same problems with infidelity, divorce, and certainly cohabiting. Ellen De Generis was married to Anne Heche when Anne cavorted off with a cameraman. That was infidelity.

I don't think that homosexuals will be immune from the foibles of human nature that cause heterosexuals to stray or shack up before marriage.

So, don't you think it would be discriminating to deny the German brother and sister couple who have four children together the legal benefits of marriage if homosexual couples in their country are granted these rights?

All are consenting adults who love one another. So, why okay one and not the other?

Edithann & Rrage

How does legalizing gay marriages effect us.. Making it legal is to legitimize & promote it as a normal behavior. I believe in many of the schools it is already pushed (promoted) on to the children as being taught by the teachers as alternative life styles & that it is OK if thats what the child wants to do. Many of the gays are cross dressers, recently back east there was an incident in a McDonald's restaurant where a gay man dressed as a woman demanded that he go to the rest room while 2 young girls were in there, is that effecting you enough. A few days ago it was announced on national news that there are 50.000 new cases of aids every year & THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE MEN THAT HAVE SEX WITH MEN.

I heard one researcher say that one of the common characteristics among gays is that they are extremely sexually active with numerous men on a weakly basis,

I would not want a prostitute to serve me or my family food because of the health risk that she poses steaming from activities with her many sex partners. Same with gay people I would not want them working on my teeth or in any other medical facility or teaching my son that wearing dresses & high heels is OK.. Or that orgies are OK because thats what snakes do.

I Believe that there are increased risk of aids & other diseases that is connected to the type of sex that these people practice & there dangerouse life styles. Don't expect me to call that love when 2 people have sex & they are bruised & bleeding after they are done.

I have other reasons why this kind of perverted behavioure effects me & my nation but you didnt want deal with it.

Mary Ann--I am not sure what I think about the variety of marriage forms you suggest, mostly because we've been talking about gay marriage.

The topic of gay marriage really seems to push some buttons, but I am not sure that I see the same amount of outrage and discourse cancerning the topics of co-habitation and infidelity. In my opinion--those two items have contributed far more to the deterioration of the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever will.

You said: "You cannot say that two men can marry when they love and consent to sex without discriminating against three men or a combination of "lovers" who want all the benefits of marriage."

Likewise, I say: You cannot focus only on gay marriage as a threat to marriage without equally addressing co-habitation and infidelity as well.

RR, I answered your questions to me. Noticed you didn't reciprocate. No problem, however.

Edith, I think that making homosexual marriage legal will affect society. One effect is to open up the definition of marriage indefinitely pretty much to make marriage meaningless. You cannot say that two men can marry when they love and consent to sex without discriminating against three men or a combination of "lovers" who want all the benefits of marriage.

Incestual marriage might make you disgusted, just like the thought of homosexual marriage might have disgusted someone 25 years ago, but the world is changing, not?

Also, one would be discriminating against any other consenting individuals who love one another- including brothers and sisters who consent to get it on.

I gave a fuller point of view on this back in the 213-comment thread. Guess I'll dig it up when I have more time.

Edith Ann, would you open up the definition of marriage to triads and to adult incestual couples? If not why not? And if so, why?

Rebecca, I've asked you that question twice now. Would you prevent loving consenting individuals from the benefits of marriage just because nature makes something repugnant to you?

Good point, porkpark.

However...I think couples living together without benefit of marriage has done more to 'cheapen' marriage that some gay folks asking for equal rights has.

Let's not discount how not obeying your marriage vows cheapens the concept of marriage, also.

But, that's just my opinion.

Gary--

What do you mean by affect? I am pretty sure the answer is no.

I see what you are trying to do--equate AIDS with homosexuality. True, there is a disproportionate share of AIDS among homosexuals, but there are many heterosexual folks who have contracted AIDS through means other than sexual activity.

In Africa, though, AIDS is epidemic among heterosexual couples.

So, what is your point, Gary?

And my questions are still out there. Thanks RR.

I found this:

"By Henry Samuel in Paris

7:00AM GMT 28 Jan 2010

Until now, incest was lumped together in French law in the category "rape" and "sex abuse", but French MPs have passed a bill specifically singling it out as an offence."

Edithann do people with aids effect you?

EdithAnn,

don't expect to get any answers to your questions. Everyone against gay marriage/gay rights have always ignored answering those questions on the VicAd. Maryann conveniently ignored them even though she replied lol

Thanks, parkpork.

Okay, again, we're in agreement on a lot of the points, so let's looks at a gay couple wanting certain rights that are afforded to straight couples made available to them.

Giving them rights affects you how? Giving them something equal to what you have lessens yours in what way?

My questions are still there.

(or sorry you felt controlled?)

I am glad that we no longer tie stones around the necks of the accused and toss them in the river to determine their innocence, which was the norm for those who were committing incest. The punishment was death.

I think the Solon article is, not only about incest, but also about molestation. Note the ages! That's not two consenting adults, by my standards.

I do have a problem with incest, but I also have a problem with making what two adults do in the privacy of their own home a crime punishable by death OR prison.

I think these cases don't represent the norm (or mentally healthy people) and they aren't all about two consenting adults.

But, I'm not trying to take away your rights, Maryann, just trying to join in the conversation. Again, sorry if you felt attacked.

Hi, Mary Ann!

We did get a small amount of rain earlier this evening. Not nearly enough, but welcomed just the same.

I may be off in my count here, but I think your letter makes the 5th item on this topic. Everything I mentioned in my previous comment has been addressed (and then some) on most all of them. Yet, no one has explained how two gays getting married affects them.

What keeps popping in my head is the old admonition from my mother when I was a child--"Eat your food. There are starving children in China!" (It was China then.) Unless she was prepared to pack up my leftovers and mail them to China, those starving children really were not a situation I could affect.

This must be a topic that folks feel like affects them, as many comments as it has garnered just in the past week. Wonder how we could get folks to be this passionate about local political issues? You know, stuff that actually affects them.

So, my questions are still there for the answering.

Hello Edith Ann, good to see you here. Hope you get some rain your way. Looks promising in some areas!

This topic has been discussed on other threads for a while now. If you are talking about this particular discussion, religion hasn't been discussed here. As far as constitutionally speaking, indirectly with laws on marriage, I'm sure that's related to laws we've discussed.

Very few of us have religious points of view in common; however, we all have human nature in common. That seems like something to make measurable observations and comments upon. When it comes to love and consent, that's not as measurable, but it's vouched for by individuals involved.

You ask some interesting questions, as always.

Ignoring my instinct to forgo any comments, I do have an observation to make.

We have agreed that some folks are okay with gay marriage.
We have agreed that some folks are not okay with gay marriage.
We have agreed that some are opposed to it based upon religious beliefs.
We have agreed that some are opposed for constitutional reasons.

What I haven't seen is this:
How does two gay folks getting married affect you?
How does it change your marriage?

[This question is not directed to any particular person; anyone can answer.]

Now I remember that the link I gave earlier from Salon.com said that when incest laws were struck down, they were no longer criminal offenses for adults.

Switzerland is debating doing the same thing, and this article states that the incest would be between consenting adults. Some call the law "obsolete."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Rebecca, you can check those laws out on Wikipedia. I looked at some earlier for homosexual relationships and provided a link.

Do you think that consenting adults who love one another and consent to a sexual relationship should have the full legal protections of marriage? And that would include siblings and triads.

The status quo in Texas is that marriage is recognized as between one man and one woman. How far would you accept changing those lines of definition?

Park, it really doesn't matter what I think, if you think about it. I just enjoy the discussion.

Maryann, did the laws include a death sentence? I'm curious. I was just trying to add some information and details - also to remove the association between homosexuality and incest. I sure you hope you didn't take that as an attack on you. D=

Rebecca, you say, "I wonder why people are so scared that if they don't control others, that the whole world will just slide down this illogical road. Give people more credit than that."

Are you trying to control MY thought processes, opinions, and preferences with your own preferences and assertions? I hope not.

Why are you so open to others' points of view and leaving them alone- unless they disagree with your idea of living life or NOT living life?

In other words, your assertions here can be seen as an attempt to control as well.

Why is a proposal based on nature for marriage distasteful for you? I think because you can see where the reality of nature leads; thus, your inherent distaste for incestual relationships.

You used the word insane, and we might both agree.

Do you think it was insane for Napoleon to strike down the incest laws in France, and for Argentina, Japan, and Brazil to recently strike them down?

Some might see it as insanity.

Others might see it as society butting out of what loving, consenting adults care to do. ( Pun not intended!)

Do you think that loving, consenting adults can freely marry, with no societal restriction, including triads, and siblings?

I should have said, "even though forbidden."

So has ignorance.

Incest has existed in all cultures, even when forbidden.

Lastly, Why do people get married?

Rebecca Rebecca Rebecca - Please tell me you have enough sense to know that guy on guy gal on gal for sex is not correct. What do they gain from doing that?

"Incest" was broadly defined. It included sleeping with your wife's sister, anyone related by blood, and even anyone not related by blood, but by marriage. I think it even included sleeping with a slave that you owned - I'll have to check back on that. That was the definition of incest. Maybe the laws were struck down because you can't jail someone for adultery or for marrying a cousin, by using old incest law.

I'm just guessing.

I just don't think it's right to make that leap and to believe that if you allow same sex marriages that you are opening the way for acceptance of incestuous marriages. One thing that cultures have had in common throughout history is that incest was always forbidden. That's what they have in common.

If you are going to be against same sex marriage, it would make more sense and maybe be more tasteful to use an argument based on church teachings. To equate same sex marriage with an eventual acceptance of incestuous marriages, is wrong. Humans are bad, but they haven't been that bad - to allow incestuous relationships.

I would accept an argument based on church teachings before I would accept one based on fear.

Maryann, you are basing an argument against something because of what insane people are doing. I think we have had a discussion on the need for better mental health care. Your argument, with your examples, can just as easily make a case against marriage. I will say it again, that in cultures where homosexuality was accepted or where polygamy was accepted, incest was not. Your fears are not founded. I was referring to historical information found in a book I have, "A History of Private Life From Pagan Rome to Byzantium." It touches on homosexuality (this isn't new), incest, polygamy, adultery, and marriage. Incest was a big no no even when the cultures practiced homosexuality openly...

I wonder why people are so scared that if they don't control others, that the whole world will just slide down this illogical road. Give people more credit than that.

RR, marriage in the US is a public institution. If the definition of marriage is changeable, I am interested. From my point of view, the German brother and sister are individuals that are being denied marriage because of nature; again, that is interesting to me.

Do you think that the German brother and sister should be allowed all the legal and social benefits of marriage, and if so, why?

If not, why not?

MaryAnn,

How are gays being together or wanting to marry each other affecting or hurting you? How are the German brother and sister affecting your life? Can you not sleep at night? Just wondering.

Speakup, that article certainly wasn't hate speech and shouldn't have been labeled as such. Perhaps it was the comments coming from both points of view that were deemed hateful, and that's why it was scrubbed? Is that what you're saying?

Sorry to stray off subject but there is an item that needs attention. Here we have a debate about a law that hasn't been passed and is dead until next year.

Why not an article regarding today's date? June 6th ring a bell with anyone? There was one mention in the paper today. Snoopie remembered. Thank you Snoopy.

Hello RB, interesting metaphor! In today's paper there is a pro/con on having guns on college campuses. That is a more balanced approach rather than just headling a subject as a debate and presenting one side. Hugs to you too.

Pat B., arbritary in the sense used is random or capricious. Age of consent for sex, voting, and drinking are based on the reasoned evidence that as a norm, most people at 18 or 21 have reached an age of mature judgement.

Seventeen year olds eager to vote or 20 yr. olds mad they can't drink legally still know they will attain the right to vote and drink legally.

Do you support moving the boundary and redefining marriage to include three people and/or close relatives?

Jared, thanks for your comment!

Kyle, how do you know? :-}

Rebecca, states, "Throughout history, where homosexual relationships and even polygamy were accepted, incest was STILL forbidden."

That's not accurate.

Brazil legalized homosexual unions in 2004. Argentina has legal recognition of same-sex relationships. France has civil unions and registered partnerships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognit...

All of these countries have struck down incest laws- Brazil and Argentina recently, Napoleon struck down the incest laws in 1810.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/...

Rebecca, the German brother and sister couple have been using the German acceptance of same-sex relationships to bolster their argument that what is done between two consenting adults is their concern.

If they really love each other and want to get married, it's not an attempt to slander a group a people. They just want what the other group legally achieved.

As for me, I'm looking at this logically and not so much emotionally. To say that two consenting homosexuals can marry but two consenting heterosexuals cannot is setting a double standard that can be seen as discrimination if your basis for marrying is that they love each other and they consent.

Throughout history, where homosexual relationships and even polygamy were accepted, incest was STILL forbidden. Even if you don't agree with same sex marriage, you have to admit that it's quite an illogical leap to associate the acceptance of same sex marriage with an acceptance of incest. That association is to promote fear and to slander a group.

"Great points MaryAnn! "Homosexuals have the same right as I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex" which is point hardly ever made and needs to be spoken."

Goats have the right to have sex with cows

Why are you all so worried about things that have no affect on you?

Great points MaryAnn! "Homosexuals have the same right as I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex" which is point hardly ever made and needs to be spoken.

The government sets"arbitray" boundries for a lot of things. Age of consent,age of voting,age of drinking,etc. Why not an "arbitrary boundry on number of people and familial relationship in marriage?
Pat Barnes

...efforts REMIND me...

MARY ANN: GO GIT’EM GIRL. Your efforts along these lines reminds me of when the crawdads WALK after a big rain. Since crawdads/crawfish/crayfish/mudbugs, your choice, usually thrive in murky water a big influx of fresh water sends them in search of greener pastures (muddier climes). This action is more evident where highways run just a few inches above adjacent swamp waters. You have to admire the futile attempts of mudbugs, reared back in the middle of the road with pinchers raised, defying all comers even 18 wheelers.
As far as “balance” there are at least two suggestions here, #1. The CON side got edited for space (it’s criminal to ruin the whole tone of a piece because some wizard thinks(?) a one line fact way down in the story is more important than the author’s intent). #2. Sadly, maybe the reason is lack of funds for legal issues forces many American publishers to have more stock in CHAPSTICK than for calcium in their spines. Hugs, Rusty