Gay Marriage/civil Unions

[phee]

I guess I would say yes... gay people should have the same rights as straight people... and I am saying yes... your statement saying about gay being generally more permiscious people is as wrong as saying that black people are generally criminals or that mexicans are generally lazy by their lifestyle.

Simply put... not allowing two humans to get married based on this is bigotry... pure and simple... it is the same as saying that certain races are not allowed to intermarry (that is something we had to include too if your remember)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

All Goths wear black and like gloomy weather... that’s a sub-culture thing.

Acting all girly and wearing a pink ascot, that just bad taste.

I'm really at odds here. There are just so many factors that shape a person's externalness. What we, on the outside, see as them.

Is it choice? Is that choice a conscious or unconscious choice? Is it something the environment they were brought up in shaped? Are they mentally or emotionally damaged in some way?

We are too god damn complicated to attempt to understand or explain why anyone is who they are, not even ourselves.

[phee]

All Goths wear black and like gloomy weather... that’s a sub-culture thing.

Acting all girly and wearing a pink ascot, that just bad taste.

I'm really at odds here. There are just so many factors that shape a person's externalness. What we, on the outside, see as them.

Is it choice? Is that choice a conscious or unconscious choice? Is it something the environment they were brought up in shaped? Are they mentally or emotionally damaged in some way?

We are too god damn complicated to attempt to understand or explain why anyone is who they are, not even ourselves.

Great post!!!

[freydis]

I accept this but it does not in any way change my original argument or change the question I presented to Phee.

we are speaking in generalities here, lets be real.

I touched a nerve, I knew I would. I am anti-gay marriage. There is no way for me to be anti-gay marriage, without the rhetoric thrown my direction. Its impossible.

That wasnt the nerve it touched with me. I just have a peeve when people use the words of others as opposition to their arguement by bending their definition. It's a crummy way to try to make your point, and it bugs the crap out of me every time i see it.

[Steven]

I guess I would say yes... gay people should have the same rights as straight people... and I am saying yes... your statement saying about gay being generally more permiscious people is as wrong as saying that black people are generally criminals or that mexicans are generally lazy by their lifestyle.

No dude its nto the same thing.

your answering me with emotion, and your answering me with your agenda, a nd yoru deliberately avoiding a direct question because its bothersome just as you passed on my statement about your avatar signature about Xtians not neccesarily communicating "all are welcome here".....

But lets stick to your point because your not going to touch mine:

as an example - in the black community it can be argued that the crime rates are higher, that black on black crime is higher, and that poverty levels are higher than Joe white man in suburbia. There are many reaosn why this is happening and OF COURSE it has nothign to do with dark skin. But its happening nonetheless.

You can add bigotry to that statement or not.

doesent mean you are right about me.

doesent make me a bigot to say it either.

I can (and have) said similar thigns about inner city Latino communities. Would that make me a Mexican American anti mexican bigot? Or would it simply make me somone who recognizes that 'somethign is wrong here"????

Back to your original bigot example. You will have African Americans who are unable to seperate their emotions from the theory that crime rates are higher in their communities. All they will be able to do is muster up an agry retort to my citing what I beleive is statistycally correct. ANd then you will have others - that feel a healthy sense of burdon concerning it. But first it take s recognition. Thats the step nopbody wants to take.

I think your playing word games with me Phee because what I've stated is technically wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong red flag red flag bigot alert, it makes people angry. But I stand on what I beleive is true, and that does nto come from statistical analysis (although it certainly exists and nobody wants to talk about it because it sounds ugly - as ugly as saying black men are violent) - it comes from first person involvment with people within the gay community for alot of years dude. I do not make my judgements form a safe distance - and I do not set myself up as superior to what or whom Im discussing. I'm simply saying "hey - in my eyes - theres a problem here".

[Steven]

That wasnt the nerve it touched with me. I just have a peeve when people use the words of others as opposition to their arguement by bending their definition. It's a crummy way to try to make your point, and it bugs the crap out of me every time i see it.

noted but its off subject and you got what I was saying.

[Steven]

All Goths wear black and like gloomy weather... that’s a sub-culture thing.

Acting all girly and wearing a pink ascot, that just bad taste.

I'm really at odds here. There are just so many factors that shape a person's externalness. What we, on the outside, see as them.

Is it choice? Is that choice a conscious or unconscious choice? Is it something the environment they were brought up in shaped? Are they mentally or emotionally damaged in some way?

We are too god damn complicated to attempt to understand or explain why anyone is who they are, not even ourselves.

good Post Brutha but again I cite that choice has never been part of the point I was trying to make.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Just sharing a thought inspired by the conversation.

[Steven]

Just sharing a thought inspired by the conversation.

its all good Mark.

[Medea]

you have every right to feel this way and I respect it.

"making judgements"..... the truth is we ALL do that Phee - we all decide what is seemignly good or not good as a whole, in essence you just judged me and my judgment...... I'd rather we all just say "this is how I feel" - because I knew that stating what I just did in the above post would start the arrows flying, however Im not a bullshitter, and this is indeed - how I feel. I noticed that you failed to mention my inclusion of shitty heterosexual marriages as well. That judgement was also in there.

and lets use the broad brushstrokes - its ok with me.

for example the black communities alleged higher violence levels - is there any merit to the data?

if I cite it to build a point - have I then moved into bigotry? Judgment? or have I simply pulled from an accquired database?

Ive used it on my own race by the way - this methodology - I have many times posted about what bothers me in the Latino family unit and lifestyle - there is lots of back asswards shit going on there. Now yes I am Latin so I suppose that gives me a free pass but trust me I'd have said it anyway even if my eyes were blue and my hair was blonde and I was talking about a measurable standard that is easily identifyable.

The Gay Lifestyle - I am talking about the LIFESTYLE most commonly found - within the gay community.

I am not arguing wherther or not being gay is something born with. I am not chastizing gay people. In fact when have you ever seen me do that?

I am referring to the LIFESTYLE in general - and yes Phee I have ALOT of experience personally interacting with this lifestyle being where I come from - the LIFESTYLE in general is one of many rotating partners. many. often. alot. buncha. thats the truth. I dont care if it sounds like judgement. it also happens to be the truth. doesent make me a bigot or holier than thou.....in the process I have seen a lot of lonely people Phee, with breakdown after breakdown after breakdown of their relationships. I have sat with them while they cried to me about it - I dont sit there on my white fluffy mountain and "Fag Bash". These friends have sat at my table for Xmas, exchanged drunken stupid jokes with me over a campfire, sat next to me in weddings, made pomogranete jelly with me in the kitchen, held my head up while I puked, sang with me at concerts at the Hollywood bowl, and asked us to pray over their partners in the hospital who were dying of aids - and thats some ugly shit to watch up close Phee. I dont say this shit just to say it from a safe and haughty place. I say it because I've expereinced it first hand. and it saddens me. just like other friends - straight friends - who's lifestyles simply repeat themselves and at some point I have to go "Dude - is what you'v been doing EVER going to work?" I may come off as judgemental on paper Phee - but thats because its a written medium and I give my bottom line thoughts on teh process.

By the way - I used the Mellisa Ethridge / Julia Cypher example as a distant example. In my case, my personal history includes at least two lesbian families that self destructed (both times over infidelity-jealousy) that included kids who in turn were pretty fucked up. My first indroctrination into this lifestyle came at 15 - because my next door neighbor ran a lesbian bar on Colorado Blvd in Pasadena - they used to let me go in there to drink under age. that is when I first started making friends with the gay and lesbian community, as a kid. I dont see them as freaks. I dont see them as anythign other than people. But I DO see the lifestyle - and ANY lifestyle of wanton promiscuety (which was my prsonal trip too) eventually lead to disallusionment and breakdown, hetero ro otherwise - BUT WERE TALKIGN ABOUT THE GAY LIFESTYLE TODAY.

and the Christian Lifstyle is more fucked up than even you mentioned Bro - I have no problem with that either and in all fairness have MANY times talked abotu my frustration with it.

there - now we know that although im an antiquated judgmental dinosaur I'm still being fair in my consistency if nothing else.

next in line, batter up.

You see, the problem is, you seem to equate a promiscuous lifestyle with a gay lifestyle. However, those are two independent issues.

You say that within the gay lifestyle, rotating partners is common. And is this somehow uncommon within the straight lifestyle? I have seen just as many two minute relationships amongst straight people as I have amongst gay people. No offense to this board, but you can find many examples of it right here.

Does this make the rotating partner sort of behaviour right? Well, that's a judgment call. But to use promiscuous behaviour within a certain demographic as a basis for not allowing them the rights of marriage, then you would have to show that this is something PARTICULAR to that lifestyle, or at least more so than in other lifestyles.

I would never say that any religion should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that its very doctrine disapproves of. Religion is a separate issue and is something to be discussed in a different topic. However, when we are talking about the secular purposes and benefits of marriage, then it should apply to any two consenting adults who wish to have it.

At the moment, there are millions of heterosexual people in marriages for any number of reasons other than trying to build a real, trusting relationship built on the basis of love and support for each other. And unless we are going to start DENYING marriage to those heterosexuals not seeking it for the right reasons, then why should we deny it to homosexuals who might be seeking it for the right reasons?

Also, don't you those the homosexuals that actually go through the effort of getting married, rather than just flitting from relationship to relationship might actually give their marriage a good go at it?

You use Melissa Ethridge as an example of a failed homosexual marriage. How many hundreds of other celebrity marriages split apart, with one or another of the partners seeking solace in the arms of many others afterwards?

Relationships break apart. It happens. For you to hold the fact that one particular celebrity marriage failed against the entire concept of marriage would be ridiculous.

For the longest time, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis were held as a shining example of a celebrity marriage gone right. It was in newspapers and magazines everywhere. Now, they've divorced. Does this mean that heterosexual marriage is a failed concept?

[BrassFusion]

Steven, you have a serious problem with the distinction between correlation and causation.

I am not immoral because I'm not Christian, nor am I not Christian because I'm immoral.

Gays are not promiscuous because they're gay, nor are they gay because they're promiscuous.

Shark attacks do not increase as a result of ice cream consumption, just as ice cream consumption doesn't increase as a result of shark attacks.

(As for the last one, it's generally accepted that both increase with the onset of pleasant weather.)

Even if, by your biased standard, gays are somehow more promiscuous than heteros, fuck the notion that they don't deserve the same chance at legitimizing a long-term relationship. Denying the right to marry to gays because you feel they're somehow less loyal is akin to jailing all black men between the ages of 16 and 30 as a preventive measure.

Seriously... why the fuck would you care if any gay marriage fails? Can you honestly say you'd be happier to hear that one succeeded? If that's really how you feel, maybe you should support their legalization!

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I think the answer to this is really quite simple and really don't understand the problem or why it's even a big issue. What two or more people choose to do with their sex lives is really nobody's business except those involved. You can beat this topic to death with a sexual morality argument, but really the civil rights movement SHOULD have taken care of this a long time ago. Not allowing gay marriage is outright discrimination. Period. It pisses me off to no end that our tax dollars finance such a long and ongoing debate on such a SIMPLE matter. I sometimes wonder if controversial topics aren't just another ploy to manipulate and distract the American public.....

Religion aside, this country was founded on certain principles that we should adhere to. One of them was escaping religious persecution. Can we really support freedom, yet use religion itself to persecute others? Jesus Christ forgave prostitutes. To my knowledge in the post-Christ era, Paul was the only one persecuting people for sexual immorality for the most part, and he was both a Jew, and probably a little troubled from being undersexed. Peter was told by an angel not to call unclean what God has made clean. Was he just talking about food or was he talking about the Gentiles? I mean hell if we want to get technical here, we're not supposed to eat pork, fuck on the rag, get tattoos, etc. etc. This is Jewish law right? Did Christ not give us something greater than Law? Do we not have the right to decide our morality for ourselves?

I'm sorry, but if the loving God that I've come to know is treacherous to the point that he would condemn love for the sake of law, then his greatest sacrifice was in vain and taught us absolutely nothing. Paul was a great man in many ways, but I don't honestly believe he completely surrendered his pride and will to the Spirit. While, I will credit him with giving me understanding in many situations through words, it took a hell of a lot more than words to give me my Faith. I am still learning everyday, and unless I come to find that I'm possessed by demons, I will trust in my feelings. The Law was meant for a faithless people, but through faith we have the ability to judge even the angels.

If my heart is impure let God rebuke me, and let it be the same for all men and women, because no just governing body should dictate morality. I've said this before, the only practical purpose for law is to look out for the well being of our fellow humans safety and protection. This is my religion and I trust the one who made me. For all purposes, it works for me and is very practical and personal. I am the way God made me, and one day I will be destroyed. If he can't love me for who I am, then how can I ever call him Father? My human Father loved me unconditionally, let me make mistakes, and let me learn from them. Our divine Father may not tolerate sin, but what sin is their inside of love?

If the above statement could be considered heresy by any Christian, then let me pose this question. When Jesus said love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, love your neighbors as yourselves, and love your enemies too, and that love can do no wrong, what did he mean? Personally, I think there is profound wisdom in that statement, and the only heresy is that Christians refuse to believe and trust the Son of God. When I've removed all the planks from my eyes, I'll work on the planks of others.....

If Jesus Christ the man and the myth (and I'm sure most of us know the pagan myths that were associated with Jesus), is in fact the Word of God and the gatekeeper, then I will trust my judgment as I trust in HIS teachings. If in fact, I am wrong, and all the deceptions I've seen in this physical world from science to astrology, were not in fact planted by the Devil as a means to separate us from God, then I guess I die one day and that's it. If there is a Satan he certainly didn't open our eyes so we could see the truth.... Seeing is believing and knowing conquers all. or as Trent Reznor once put it:

The devils of truth steal the souls of the free.

[Steven]

You see, the problem is, you seem to equate a promiscuous lifestyle with a gay lifestyle. However, those are two independent issues.

You say that within the gay lifestyle, rotating partners is common. And is this somehow uncommon within the straight lifestyle? I have seen just as many two minute relationships amongst straight people as I have amongst gay people. No offense to this board, but you can find many examples of it right here.

Does this make the rotating partner sort of behaviour right? Well, that's a judgment call. But to use promiscuous behaviour within a certain demographic as a basis for not allowing them the rights of marriage, then you would have to show that this is something PARTICULAR to that lifestyle, or at least more so than in other lifestyles.

I would never say that any religion should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that its very doctrine disapproves of. Religion is a separate issue and is something to be discussed in a different topic. However, when we are talking about the secular purposes and benefits of marriage, then it should apply to any two consenting adults who wish to have it.

At the moment, there are millions of heterosexual people in marriages for any number of reasons other than trying to build a real, trusting relationship built on the basis of love and support for each other. And unless we are going to start DENYING marriage to those heterosexuals not seeking it for the right reasons, then why should we deny it to homosexuals who might be seeking it for the right reasons?

Also, don't you those the homosexuals that actually go through the effort of getting married, rather than just flitting from relationship to relationship might actually give their marriage a good go at it?

You use Melissa Ethridge as an example of a failed homosexual marriage. How many hundreds of other celebrity marriages split apart, with one or another of the partners seeking solace in the arms of many others afterwards?

Relationships break apart. It happens. For you to hold the fact that one particular celebrity marriage failed against the entire concept of marriage would be ridiculous.

For the longest time, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis were held as a shining example of a celebrity marriage gone right. It was in newspapers and magazines everywhere. Now, they've divorced. Does this mean that heterosexual marriage is a failed concept?

NO that's not "what I say"....

Go back and you'll find "what I say"

Go on, OK, go back. a little more. a little more. there ya go.

re read. a little more. a little more. there ya go.

find where I said that this goes for heterosexual relationships as well.

find where I said this model - YES - the hetero model is allready failing. Make a mental note that I allready stated what you are stating.

find where I used Mellisa Ethridge as ONE example.

Find where I added another example - non celebrity type.

find where I mentioned somebody else - non celebrity type.

find where I mentioend children, non celebrity type

find where I started first interacting with the homosexual community at a very young age, non celebriety type.

find where I said that this conclusion of mine, is reached by way of this personal interaction for many years.

discern that I'd like to focus on what is allready broken before I add yet another facet to a sinking ship.

read ALL my shit people, and then try to catch my concern overall, as it pertains to the subject at hand.

yes I beleive the common concept of marriage is failing.

I also beleive that we should not allow people to get married just because they are in love - Heterosexual people Im talking about now - I think some extensive teaching / skill set building should be a pre requisite because people are getting married, having kids, and then crashign and burning in record numbers leaving a legacy of faithlessless in terms of long term commitment that waters down generationaly. We prepare ourselves for careers everyday but do nothing to prepare ourselves for marriage? thats fuckign stupid. we do stupid thigns as a society and then vehemently defend our ideals while fucking stupid end results still run rampant. Howz your marriage? Howz your parents marriage? ANyhting stupid in there? Moving on...

I applied this "lets not allow it" to Homosexual Marriage.

But I would also "lets not allow it" for Heterosexual marriages as well.

I have a thing about marriage.

I like it when it works

I hate it when it dont

I hate that so many people jsut do it and do not arm themselves to stand the test of time

I hate it when people stick togethor (GAY OR STRAIGHT YO) and are misrable and ALL THEY DO is survive as if that is success when they are fooling nobody and many of you people here in the room watch your parents do it and are fucking disgusted and well should be and now you will take that shit into your relationships as well, nobody is fooling anybody here.

I have a marriage thign, if you will.

not a Gay Marriage thing.

BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE SO THERE YA GO.

I dont think were anywhere near being ready for that - we cant handle our own shit as it is - I dont care who that pisses off - we have a sinking ship allready.

thats my stance.

go back and re read.

Im not as black and white as your charging me.

nor am I without experience in this regard. You guys who try to say Im media driven have no idea what your talking about.

you people have lofty ideals which are respectable.

but ideals are not going to stand the test of time. I live my shit, I dont just throw it out there.

and Im really dont care who that pisses off.

[Steven]

I think the answer to this is really quite simple and really don't understand the problem or why it's even a big issue. What two or more people choose to do with their sex lives is really nobody's business except those involved. You can beat this topic to death with a sexual morality argument, but really the civil rights movement SHOULD have taken care of this a long time ago. Not allowing gay marriage is outright discrimination. Period. It pisses me off to no end that our tax dollars finance such a long and ongoing debate on such a SIMPLE matter. I sometimes wonder if controversial topics aren't just another ploy to manipulate and distract the American public.....

Religion aside, this country was founded on certain principles that we should adhere to. One of them was escaping religious persecution. Can we really support freedom, yet use religion itself to persecute others? Jesus Christ forgave prostitutes. To my knowledge in the post-Christ era, Paul was the only one persecuting people for sexual immorality for the most part, and he was both a Jew, and probably a little troubled from being undersexed. Peter was told by an angel not to call unclean what God has made clean. Was he just talking about food or was he talking about the Gentiles? I mean hell if we want to get technical here, we're not supposed to eat pork, fuck on the rag, get tattoos, etc. etc. This is Jewish law right? Did Christ not give us something greater than Law? Do we not have the right to decide our morality for ourselves?

I'm sorry, but if the loving God that I've come to know is treacherous to the point that he would condemn love for the sake of law, then his greatest sacrifice was in vain and taught us absolutely nothing. Paul was a great man in many ways, but I don't honestly believe he completely surrendered his pride and will to the Spirit. While, I will credit him with giving me understanding in many situations through words, it took a hell of a lot more than words to give me my Faith. I am still learning everyday, and unless I come to find that I'm possessed by demons, I will trust in my feelings. The Law was meant for a faithless people, but through faith we have the ability to judge even the angels.

If my heart is impure let God rebuke me, and let it be the same for all men and women, because no just governing body should dictate morality. I've said this before, the only practical purpose for law is to look out for the well being of our fellow humans safety and protection. This is my religion and I trust the one who made me. For all purposes, it works for me and is very practical and personal. I am the way God made me, and one day I will be destroyed. If he can't love me for who I am, then how can I ever call him Father? My human Father loved me unconditionally, let me make mistakes, and let me learn from them. Our divine Father may not tolerate sin, but what sin is their inside of love?

If the above statement could be considered heresy by any Christian, then let me pose this question. When Jesus said love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, love your neighbors as yourselves, and love your enemies too, and that love can do no wrong, what did he mean? Personally, I think there is profound wisdom in that statement, and the only heresy is that Christians refuse to believe and trust the Son of God. When I've removed all the planks from my eyes, I'll work on the planks of others.....

If Jesus Christ the man and the myth (and I'm sure most of us know the pagan myths that were associated with Jesus), is in fact the Word of God and the gatekeeper, then I will trust my judgment as I trust in HIS teachings. If in fact, I am wrong, and all the deceptions I've seen in this physical world from science to astrology, were not in fact planted by the Devil as a means to separate us from God, then I guess I die one day and that's it. If there is a Satan he certainly didn't open our eyes so we could see the truth.... Seeing is believing and knowing conquers all. or as Trent Reznor once put it:

The devils of truth steal the souls of the free.

Kevin - I have NO problem whatsoever going round and round with you on this one if you want to pull the God card. You may be suprised to find that I've done my time here too. But lets start another thread for it in fairness to everybody else - because all Ive done to refute is give my (Steven) personal point of view - I have not in any way included the faith aspect of it and that is really NOT what is driving my decision.

Start the thread, copy this to it, and I will follow you there.

Lets keep the God card out of this one.

[Steven]

Steven, you have a serious problem with the distinction between correlation and causation.

I am not immoral because I'm not Christian, nor am I not Christian because I'm immoral.

Gays are not promiscuous because they're gay, nor are they gay because they're promiscuous.

Shark attacks do not increase as a result of ice cream consumption, just as ice cream consumption doesn't increase as a result of shark attacks.

(As for the last one, it's generally accepted that both increase with the onset of pleasant weather.)

Even if, by your biased standard, gays are somehow more promiscuous than heteros, fuck the notion that they don't deserve the same chance at legitimizing a long-term relationship. Denying the right to marry to gays because you feel they're somehow less loyal is akin to jailing all black men between the ages of 16 and 30 as a preventive measure.

Seriously... why the fuck would you care if any gay marriage fails? Can you honestly say you'd be happier to hear that one succeeded? If that's really how you feel, maybe you should support their legalization!

a serious problem Erin?

Like, seriously?

Ice Cream and Sharks?

Seriously?

Did you go back and seriously re read ALL my shit where I address these issues?

I AM biased Erin, straight up.

As are you Ms. Kettle Black.

Choose your side, Ive chosen mine.

my right, your right.

enough said.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

you people have lofty ideals which are respectable.

but ideals are not going to stand the test of time. I live my shit, I dont just throw it out there.

and Im really dont care who that pisses off.

Ideals only hold true as long as there are willing and able people that will defend them. It's not just marriage that is falling apart brother. It is our society as a whole. From the family unit to the state. We allow our differences to divide us, and because of this, corruption prevails and everything this nation stood for is crumbling brick by brick. Ideals once made us a great nation. The industrial revolution and the greed and corruption that followed has taken us so far from our purpose and Constitution, that we send our men and women afar to defend a nation who's primary enemy has already infiltrated us many years ago. Ideals could make us great again, as long as people are willing to defend them....

I support our troops, but not the cause that was given them. If they are fighting for to protect our freedom, they're fighting the wrong fucking guys.

[Steven]

Ideals only hold true as long as there are willing and able people that will defend them. It's not just marriage that is falling apart brother. It is our society as a whole. From the family unit to the state. We allow our differences to divide us, and because of this, corruption prevails and everything this nation stood for is crumbling brick by brick. Ideals once made us a great nation. The industrial revolution and the greed and corruption that followed has taken us so far from our purpose and Constitution, that we send our men and women afar to defend a nation who's primary enemy has already infiltrated us many years ago. Ideals could make us great again, as long as people are willing to defend them....

I support our troops, but not the cause that was given them. If they are fighting for to protect our freedom, they're fighting the wrong fucking guys.

to TRULY defend something Kevin you be willing to live it and become it so that its not so easily detatchible in times of trial.

we lost that edge a long time ago. People no longer have the werewithal to stand. they no longer beleinve in things like honor and courage and goodness. Instead they beleive in MINE. Tell me Kevin do you belevie as a nation - correction - as a YOUNG nation - we have what it takes to withstand an ivasion or a collapse of our infrastructure? In Europe those pople generationally HAD to breed inner strength and contentment into their being. But we have X Box here, and happy pills, and mtv, and relative truth, and a host of other escapes. I dont beel;vie we have the nutsack for it. We havent had it for years.

"this we will defend...."

what the fuck will you defend?

"THIS" is now so splinteered into differeing schools of thought that it no longer has potency let alone relavancy.

we used to honor the family, value it before self, career, sexual adventure, and the Jones next door.

to me the family is the core of all that is in this country. Water it down, fragment it, subdivide it and eventually rechristen it and you've no longer got the strength you used to have.

you and I seem to have different takes on what needs to be done to protect it.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

to TRULY defend something Kevin you be willing to live it and become it so that its not so easily detatchible in times of trial.

we lost that edge a long time ago. People no longer have the werewithal to stand. they no longer beleinve in things like honor and courage and goodness. Instead they beleive in MINE. Tell me Kevin do you belevie as a nation - correction - as a YOUNG nation - we have what it takes to withstand an ivasion or a collapse of our infrastructure? In Europe those pople generationally HAD to breed inner strength and contentment into their being. But we have X Box here, and happy pills, and mtv, and relative truth, and a host of other escapes. I dont beel;vie we have the nutsack for it. We havent had it for years.

"this we will defend...."

what the fuck will you defend?

"THIS" is now so splinteered into differeing schools of thought that it no longer has potency let alone relavancy.

we used to honor the family, value it before self, career, sexual adventure, and the Jones next door.

to me the family is the core of all that is in this country. Water it down, fragment it, subdivide it and eventually rechristen it and you've no longer got the strength you used to have.

you and I seem to have different takes on what needs to be done to protect it.

Perhaps. I believe the same things regarding family though. I just believe that it also has more to do with individual awareness and action. Voting, petitioning, doing whatever it takes to make our voices heard. Unity. Faith. I have seen life from so many perspectives, and we are beaten up, but we're not broken. As long as we can still crawl with bloodied knees, we can be great again. Every time I fall, I get back up again. This world is a very lonely place sometimes. You're right. It is about MINE. This is one of the first words children speak anymore.... We nourish and cultivate this attitude in this world. We teach them to share, but we don't emphasize it enough. Humans are very territorial, and despite all of our advances, it seems that our primal instincts are taking over again. Civility destroyed what sloth has resurrected. The Beast is alive and well. Is tolerance submission? This is not freedom. We are killing each other and destroying this planet. When we've gone and used up all of our energy resources, what will we do?

[BrassFusion]

Steven, yours is not to judge who's ready for marriage and who's not, gay or straight. People make stupid mistakes because that's the price of freedom, which, may I say, this country was founded on as opposed to "security" or doing everything "right" the first time by some asshole king's standard. Straights are not the nobles and gays are not the serfs. We. Are.

EQUAL.

And equal rights are inevitable. I hope that doesn't "shake the foundation of your faith" when your promiscuous gay neighbors get married and divorce three weeks later. Fuck it. It's their RIGHT. Your part in any of this is to be a what, marriage counselor? Damn, boy! Counsel some gay couples on how to have a successful monogamous relationship! The experience will be good for you.

[Steven]

Steven, yours is not to judge who's ready for marriage and who's not, gay or straight. People make stupid mistakes because that's the price of freedom, which, may I say, this country was founded on as opposed to "security" or doing everything "right" the first time by some asshole king's standard. Straights are not the nobles and gays are not the serfs. We. Are.

EQUAL.

And equal rights are inevitable. I hope that doesn't "shake the foundation of your faith" when your promiscuous gay neighbors get married and divorce three weeks later. Fuck it. It's their RIGHT. Your part in any of this is to be a what, marriage counselor? Damn, boy! Counsel some gay couples on how to have a successful monogamous relationship! The experience will be good for you.

Erin honestly what do you think finnally will shake the foundation of my faith?

If this were it I'd be fighitng for legislation, out pounding the pavement, trying to raise public awareness, etc. This is just a topic of discussion, of which bugs me a bit in how it gets adressed. But I'll live. so will my faith.

Mine is not to judge, yes.

Was I really proposing that? Did you catch my example about preparing ourselves for greater responsibility in the working world? For example I'm an ops manager - I make 50 grand a year (which aint much) and you REALLY want my job, its your right to pursue my job, and you have some experience but I have alot more. Who should get the job?

Screw it lets use another example. Um, you have a music degree right? - which equates to X amount of studied knowledge right? Knowledge that you can readily access and put to use to acheive some specific goals right? Now - I have no degree. I have actually never been in a music class. But - Ive been performing for many years. I've done two albums. Ive been on the radio. Ive been on TV. I've had "some amount of halfway decent success as a musician. Let's say the the world is out pounding down doors for music teachers - you and I are both performing musicians, but the truth is YOU are the one better equipped to lead a class, not me. Not by a long shot. you have studied, and worked within a specific format that has equipped you in ways that my experience has NOT equipped me. Oh yes Im passionate about it. I'm sure I could be entertaining. But would I REALLY know what the fuck Im talking about?

nope. you would.

Is that judgement?

or is that just good old common sense?

And if Im angry that you got the shot over me, does it negate the fact that YOU did your time and are better equipped to make certain types of decisions based on your experience?

No.

I think people need to learn more before they get married.

yes its their right to be dumb asses.

absolutely.

and that sounds absolutely stupid.

almost forgot, I'd council anybody that came to me in need of council Erin.

But I admit I have a fatal flaw in my system: I have a tendency to tell people not to to be dumb asses and make something better out of what they've learned so far.

you can call that judgement if you want, trust me I sleep good.

[BrassFusion]

I really don't know what you're getting at with equating skills and occupations with sexuality or maturity in dealing with relationships. None of that justifies bigotry. You've got a lot of work to do with yourself, hon. Prejudice can only hold you back.

And before you call me a hypocrite again, when was the last time I advocated denying any rights to Christians while allowing them for anyone else? You know, if that's where you were going with that.

[Steven]

I really don't know what you're getting at with equating skills and occupations with sexuality or maturity in dealing with relationships. None of that justifies bigotry. You've got a lot of work to do with yourself, hon. Prejudice can only hold you back.

And before you call me a hypocrite again, when was the last time I advocated denying any rights to Christians while allowing them for anyone else? You know, if that's where you were going with that.

I think you do see Erin, I just think you dont like it.

[Fierce Critter]

But I do not want to add to - and provide a social recognition for - something that I beleive by the nunbers (being general here) is a failed system

I'm only quoting Steven because he opened the door on this.

Before reading past the post quoted above, I want to offer that, perhaps, if the number of gay marriages were equal to the number of man/woman union, perhaps it would be easier to judge whether they really do fail more often.

Perhaps, if gay marriages were to become an accepted part of society, certain stigmas & problems that currently might be part of driving gay couples apart might ease up or go away entirely, and perhaps might result in higher numbers of successful gay marriages.

Perhaps, someday, the success/failure numbers might then equal those of "straight" marriages.

We don't know how many gay couples are out there, living successful long-term relationships because so many are still closeted. Couples that might be able to come out publicly with their unions if they were allowed to actually wed and lose the stigma.

Just sayin'.

[Fierce Critter]

I am referring to the LIFESTYLE in general - and yes Phee I have ALOT of experience personally interacting with this lifestyle being where I come from - the LIFESTYLE in general is one of many rotating partners. many. often. alot. buncha. thats the truth.

Another thought before reading more posts.

I do agree that what we see of the homosexual lifestyle is pretty heavily bent (pardon the expression) toward promicuity.

But I also have to look at what we see, and what we don't see.

What we see is, as far as my experience, exhibitionist in nature. Meaning more radical "DIG ME" personalities. Clebrities, jet-setters, big city club-hoppers from more decadent party scenes like L.A.

What we don't see is quiet, "normal", average people who maintain 40-hour a week jobs next to you and me, who own houses on blocks in every town in America, who go to church on Sunday - and happen to be gay.

We see one because, at nature, it's about being OUT THERE. We don't see the other because, at nature, it's about being "part of."

Just sayin'.

[Steven]

Another thought before reading more posts.

I do agree that what we see of the homosexual lifestyle is pretty heavily bent (pardon the expression) toward promicuity.

But I also have to look at what we see, and what we don't see.

What we see is, as far as my experience, exhibitionist in nature. Meaning more radical "DIG ME" personalities. Clebrities, jet-setters, big city club-hoppers from more decadent party scenes like L.A.

What we don't see is quiet, "normal", average people who maintain 40-hour a week jobs next to you and me, who own houses on blocks in every town in America, who go to church on Sunday - and happen to be gay.

We see one because, at nature, it's about being OUT THERE. We don't see the other because, at nature, it's about being "part of."

Just sayin'.

I never knew any famous gay people Camille, but thanks.

I just knew regular people, people with jobs, bills, kids, lives like mine......