Gay Marriage/civil Unions

[Fierce Critter]

Another stream of consciousness thought as I read further.

Even if the majority - and I'm saying that just for the sake of argument - of homosexual marriages would end up in promiscuity and divorce...

...that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal for the small percentage who would foster a monogamous and successful marriage.

And another bit of info. I've been responding to all of this forgetting the fact that my cousin has been in a relationship with a BLACK man for longer than I can remember. I know it's been at least 20 years.

And my cousin was raised in a bigoted, Christian household.

And they both live in a house with my cousin's mother, my aunt.

They treat each other wonderful. They take loving care of her.

I hope they're not the exception. I hope what I see on TV and in magazines is just the exhibitionist side of the "gay lifestyle."

(A completely odd aside - I was dating a cross-dresser in the mid 90's and we frequented City Club. My cousin & his partner were owners of a Detroit club for a while, and friends - or at least acquainted with - the owners of CC. They happened to show up one night when I was there with my friend - dressed in drag. I was so happy to see them, I didn't think twice about introducing them to my "BOYfriend". It was only in retrospect that I remembered, despite their own "unusual" lifestyle, their looks of complete and total shock to see their "little cousin" at a "freak" club like CC with a "freak" as a boyfriend. :D )

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

FC, about 10%

[Fierce Critter]

Yet another stream of consciousness thought.

People, you need to NOT use DGN as the arbiter for what is and isn't:

normal

average

accepted

benign

majority thought

etc.

DGN is rife with a particular type of person(s). In general (with notable exceptions):

liberal

open-minded to alternative lifestyles & religions - if not outright practicing themselves

exhibitionist

creative-types (even the tecchies here seem a lot more right-brained than most)

free-thinking

accepting of and practitioners of non-linear thought

etc.

I am saying this because I've seen a lot of people get into arguments here and using people on DGN as a basis of comparison.

I really don't think that's realistic. This thought partially occurred to me in response to the discussion of sub-culture.

Just sayin'.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I would view this as a "consenting adult" issue if it was not for the fact of children and longer term effects on society. Once you factor in the kids and the long term effects on society i think it becomes a bit more complicated.

In a perfect world i think its best for a solid family and best interests of the child to have a male and female parental influence, both of whom are married to each other. This is something that i think Christianity has had right and probably one of the reasons western (read Christian) society has prospered. (and no I'm not christian particularly anyone that knows me knows i have some very harsh criticisms of many aspects of Christianity)

But, in REALITY marriages don't always last, and I'd rather have the kid have two moms or two dads than only one or the other, preferably married. I'd rather have to gay/lesbian parents raising a child than a single parent all by themselves or two struggling gay/lesbian parents.

For this one its all about the kids in my mind and the long term effects on society. What you think that may be should be the issue, not "personal freedom of choice" necessarily.

[Fierce Critter]

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

The question this put into my head is,

Who is the arbiter of what should be taught to people in order for them to get married?

Who is going to write that textbook?

Who is going to write that curriculum?

What kind of data, research & factoids are they going to base this training on?

And what kind of ulterior motives, personal feelings, and misinformation might be worked into the process?

The same thing that works for someone might not work for someone else. And vice-versa.

I can't help but think that marriage is, and always will be, trial and error.

Those who are good at learning from mistakes will have a successful marriage. Those that aren't, will divorce.

And it won't ever matter the sex of the person(s) in that marriage.

[Fierce Critter]

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

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

Yeah, but you also at some point in one of your posts did refer to being in an area that was in some way unusual for it's number of homosexuals, though much more implied than outright stated. Perhaps I read into your post wrong, but I was under the impression you were meaning California.

Which is one of the places where homosexuals tend to be more in the media, and therefore, more visible.

And just as you can't use DGN as a model of what is "normal", were the people you're talking about not possibly also part of a more unusual community? Are we talking a time when you were a drug-using, promisicuous musician consorting with like individuals?

Again, I don't mean this to be a direct response/rebuttal of what you are saying, Steven. I'm using your posts as a bouncing-off point to respond to the general anti-gay-marriage group.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

From Crunchy Pickel:

On the topic, I do believe that this sort of commitment is not taken seriously enough, and too many children suffer for it. Unforeseen circumstances aside, I don't believe that a lot of younger couples really know what they're getting into. Age discrimination on my part? I don't know. Whatever the case is, I don't think that the rights of homosexuals should be separate from the rights of heterosexuals. With the laws, we currently have in place it would be no more or less just to have gay schools and drinking fountains.

(just quoting it as necessary for admin reasons of moving part of a post)

[Steven]

Yeah, but you also at some point in one of your posts did refer to being in an area that was in some way unusual for it's number of homosexuals, though much more implied than outright stated. Perhaps I read into your post wrong, but I was under the impression you were meaning California.

Which is one of the places where homosexuals tend to be more in the media, and therefore, more visible.

And just as you can't use DGN as a model of what is "normal", were the people you're talking about not possibly also part of a more unusual community? Are we talking a time when you were a drug-using, promisicuous musician consorting with like individuals?

Again, I don't mean this to be a direct response/rebuttal of what you are saying, Steven. I'm using your posts as a bouncing-off point to respond to the general anti-gay-marriage group.

very good and fair questions Camille.

heres a couple fo simple answers:

My first Gay expereince if you will, came in the form of my next door neighbor when I was 15. Judy was a cop. Sarah was her lover. Sarah had two sons. our families hung out togethor. They also owned a gay bar in Pasadena. The oldest son scott was a year younger than I was - he was a very tortured kid. Judy and Sarah didint work out - they had a couple of years to gethor. There were alot of in between people comign and going.

Sher was Laura's best freinds sister. She was a regular person, drove a cement truck, made me jelly every Xmas - pomegranete jelly, the best of the best. I watched that girl get fucked over over and over and over again - one of her last girlfreinds was actually Bi and was hitting on me as well. She had a son, a littel boy. His mom was essentially a ho. Before her Sher had a long time girlfriend that also did not work out - but we all remained friends - we'd all go camping togethor and barbecue togethor - she was a schoolteacher. She knew all about my christianity and we used to have some very interesting conversations but it never came between us.

Tom was your typical FLAMIN kinda gay man. He was in the entertainment business, yes, behind the scenes. Tom was incredibly promiscuous. His lover scott died of Aids. Tom had us pray for scott while he was dying in the hospice. it was pretty bad, pretty ugly. Tom never had safe sex by teh way. Still doesent. And wont get tested.

Jeff was Laura's roller skating partner. he had a regular job. His boyfriend was Latin. They had the most ridiculous lovers quarrels - big time extra partners. Big time jealousy trips. Big time disfunction.

My friend John is my God Daughtes father. 15 years into his marriage he decided he wanted to experimetn with men and asked for a pass. His wife said fuck no. He left her. At 42 he had a 19 fuck buddy living with him. There is a world of knowledge between 42 and 19. ABout a year into the divorce he asked to come home and said it was all behind him. She said fuck you. they had two daughtes and a son. The family fell apart.

ok theres a few.

YES - Cali has more per capita gay people that are out of the closet than other places id assume.

Yes I saw alot of hedonism from my running around I admit.

But the gay communicty of which I speak, spoke of....and the end results that I saw, for the most part regular people.

but I caution you for speaking to me publically because Im a Bigot and need to work on myself.

[Fierce Critter]

but I caution you for speaking to me publically because Im a Bigot and need to work on myself.

Just so you know, I don't view you this way.

I know where you're coming from. And I know exactly why you think the way you do.

I don't necessarily agree with you on the repercussions of the things you observe, but I know why you might think that way.

[BrassFusion]

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

That statement's insulting to both of us.

very good and fair questions Camille.

heres a couple fo simple answers:

My first Gay expereince if you will, came in the form of my next door neighbor when I was 15. Judy was a cop. Sarah was her lover. Sarah had two sons. our families hung out togethor. They also owned a gay bar in Pasadena. The oldest son scott was a year younger than I was - he was a very tortured kid. Judy and Sarah didint work out - they had a couple of years to gethor. There were alot of in between people comign and going.

Sher was Laura's best freinds sister. She was a regular person, drove a cement truck, made me jelly every Xmas - pomegranete jelly, the best of the best. I watched that girl get fucked over over and over and over again - one of her last girlfreinds was actually Bi and was hitting on me as well. She had a son, a littel boy. His mom was essentially a ho. Before her Sher had a long time girlfriend that also did not work out - but we all remained friends - we'd all go camping togethor and barbecue togethor - she was a schoolteacher. She knew all about my christianity and we used to have some very interesting conversations but it never came between us.

Tom was your typical FLAMIN kinda gay man. He was in the entertainment business, yes, behind the scenes. Tom was incredibly promiscuous. His lover scott died of Aids. Tom had us pray for scott while he was dying in the hospice. it was pretty bad, pretty ugly. Tom never had safe sex by teh way. Still doesent. And wont get tested.

Jeff was Laura's roller skating partner. he had a regular job. His boyfriend was Latin. They had the most ridiculous lovers quarrels - big time extra partners. Big time jealousy trips. Big time disfunction.

My friend John is my God Daughtes father. 15 years into his marriage he decided he wanted to experimetn with men and asked for a pass. His wife said fuck no. He left her. At 42 he had a 19 fuck buddy living with him. There is a world of knowledge between 42 and 19. ABout a year into the divorce he asked to come home and said it was all behind him. She said fuck you. they had two daughtes and a son. The family fell apart.

ok theres a few.

YES - Cali has more per capita gay people that are out of the closet than other places id assume.

Yes I saw alot of hedonism from my running around I admit.

But the gay communicty of which I speak, spoke of....and the end results that I saw, for the most part regular people.

but I caution you for speaking to me publically because Im a Bigot and need to work on myself.

I know a lot of Mexicans who steal from their places of employment. Let's pass legislation so Mexicans are only allowed to work as day laborers. It'll be better for the economy and the children.

[phee]

Good post Erin... that's my point.

Here is the question I see at the base...

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, who is victemized? Who is hurt? the children who are going through the divorce? Umm... so hetrosexual couples get divorced too, but is it OK for them to put their children through it and not gay couples?... eh I digress...

Here is the core of the issue, do homosexuals have the same rights (not just the right to get married)... as hetrosexuals?

Here is a thought... Certain groups of people in this country in fact, do have different rights then normal citizens... Children for example, do not have the right to vote, drive, drink, or get married (certain states have different rules here but it's basically consistant), but children also have certain protections that we accept. Criminals are also not allowed to vote, or participate in certain parts of society (yet strangely... criminals have the right to get married, and homosexuals do not).

So knowing this... are we saying that homosexuals are like children, or criminals perhaps, or handicapped maybe?

Are these people given the same rights as other adults? or do we treat them as a different class of person... something different then human?

I can't believe that we even have to ask this... to me... the answer is so friggen simple... Yes... they are people, not criminals, not children... so by denying them rights we are denying them humanity... I cannot do that with a clear conscience....

Who does it hurt if two men or two women get married.... NOBODY...

[Steven]

Just so you know, I don't view you this way.

I know where you're coming from. And I know exactly why you think the way you do.

I don't necessarily agree with you on the repercussions of the things you observe, but I know why you might think that way.

cool. thanks. thats really all I needed.

[Steven]

Good post Erin... that's my point.

Here is the question I see at the base...

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, who is victemized? Who is hurt? the children who are going through the divorce? Umm... so hetrosexual couples get divorced too, but is it OK for them to put their children through it and not gay couples?... eh I digress...

Here is the core of the issue, do homosexuals have the same rights (not just the right to get married)... as hetrosexuals?

Here is a thought... Certain groups of people in this country in fact, do have different rights then normal citizens... Children for example, do not have the right to vote, drive, drink, or get married (certain states have different rules here but it's basically consistant), but children also have certain protections that we accept. Criminals are also not allowed to vote, or participate in certain parts of society (yet strangely... criminals have the right to get married, and homosexuals do not).

So knowing this... are we saying that homosexuals are like children, or criminals perhaps, or handicapped maybe?

Are these people given the same rights as other adults? or do we treat them as a different class of person... something different then human?

I can't believe that we even have to ask this... to me... the answer is so friggen simple... Yes... they are people, not criminals, not children... so by denying them rights we are denying them humanity... I cannot do that with a clear conscience....

Who does it hurt if two men or two women get married.... NOBODY...

I think it hurts the kids.

and society by re facing the family unit.

to me THAT is so simple.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I think it hurts the kids.

and society by re facing the family unit.

to me THAT is so simple.

Ok now I'm confused and must ask wtf?

Firstly, a gay couple can only have kids 3 ways that I can think of.

a) Previous relationship

b) Adoption (which isn't exactly easy. they usually don't just hand children to anybody)

c) Fucking or otherwise impregnating or becoming pregnant with someone of the opposite sex.

These things are true now. What difference would marriage make where it comes to raising children? I personally find this really offensive, because I was going to father a child for a lesbian couple once, and I was very confident in their parenting abilities.

Where re facing the family unit is concerned, I am also lost. There are plenty of gay couples now with children. This does not hurt society. What hurts society is ignorant fucks that think other people's families are any of their business, people who stick noses where they don't belong, and people who can't accept others as they are.

This is just an opinion, and I am in no way calling you any of these things, but seriously this is part of the problem. Prejudice period.

[Steven]

Ok now I'm confused and must ask wtf?

Firstly, a gay couple can only have kids 3 ways that I can think of.

a) Previous relationship

b) Adoption (which isn't exactly easy. they usually don't just hand children to anybody)

c) Fucking or otherwise impregnating or becoming pregnant with someone of the opposite sex.

These things are true now. What difference would marriage make where it comes to raising children? I personally find this really offensive, because I was going to father a child for a lesbian couple once, and I was very confident in their parenting abilities.

Where re facing the family unit is concerned, I am also lost. There are plenty of gay couples now with children. This does not hurt society. What hurts society is ignorant fucks that think other people's families are any of their business, people who stick noses where they don't belong, and people who can't accept others as they are.

This is just an opinion, and I am in no way calling you any of these things, but seriously this is part of the problem. Prejudice period.

OK we are SO going round and round on this issue.

I'm going to give one last answer before I set up another thread in a moment.

A) I have stated that I, in general, do not beleive in the long term stability of these relationships.

you do not agree with that assessment - ok - moving on

B) Because I do not beleive in the long term stability of these relationships, I do not beleive in bringing children into the mix and thus further exascerbating short term relational skillsets.

this is how I think it hurts society - because as a society I think we do not have long term skills anymore.

thats my last repsonse to this issue, I'm done with it.

[torn asunder]

yeah, i know i'm a little late on this, but i thought i'd throw my $.01 in! (not sure i'm bright enough for $.02!!)

here's the part that bothers me most about this topic - there are only two sides of it, from my viewpoint... those who are (or want to be) inclusionary, and those who are (or want to be) exclusionary.

the basic debate here is about the organized-religion aspects of marriage, and the government's role in it. to be honest, the government should have nothing to do with the recognition of the religious aspects of a legally binding union. x-tian, muslim, jewish, santarian, what-have-you - these ceremonies should have nothing to do with the debate as relates to governmentally recognized unions, AT ALL! the government has no business endorsing/promoting/excluding one religion or another, period! this entire argument could be settled if we took the religious aspects out of the government's involvement altogether - you want a x-tian wedding? great!! go have one after getting your "civil union" recognized by the proper govt. "authorities". you want a jewish wedding? muslim? hindu? druidic? have at it, and more power to you! just leave that part out of "our" government! the simple fact that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" goes against the basic principles upon which this nation was founded - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - FOR ALL!! not for "those of us who fit into a particular group/mold/category"... when bush wanted to amend the constitution as relates to this, what he was really attempting was to draft exclusionary/discriminatory legislation into our constitution!! there can be no defensible denial that the "one man, one woman" stance is discriminatory. it's exclusionary in its nature, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in this country's constitution, laws or anything else of an official nature.

it was mentioned that, based on some people's experiences (steven's, for example, because he's been the most vocal in this thread about it - sorry to drag you back in, bud!) homosexuality = promiscuity, as a general rule. while this may be true in his experience, (and i don't in any way deny/refute that) the thing that bothers me is the fact that people who agree with his take on things won't seem to allow for the fact that others have had different experiences, (homosexuality = monogamy, as a general rule) and theirs are just as valid. (this would be my experience) this should be proof enough that the "gay lifestyle" has the same kind of issues as the "straight lifestyle". if i were a gambling man, i'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 10 "straight" people, *at least* 50% would admit to either cheating, or being cheated on, (and i'd say that number is more likely 80% or higher) and i'd also bet that the numbers would coincide with those in the "gay" community. fact is, our society sucks at relationships! it has very little to do with sexual orientation - nobody communicates. be that as it may, what right does that give heterosexuals to deny the right to commit, to a couple who love each other? (please don't use the religious/moral argument - religious connotations should have nothing to do with govt. recognized commitment) this is supposed to be a land of freedom and equality! not just for those in control, or those who fit a certain mold, but every law-abiding citizen! what next? are we going to go back and disallow bi-racial marriages? are we going to set age limits, like no more than 5 yr difference? hell, convicted murderers can get married and be parents!! are we saying that we'd rather have that as a family unit than two law-abiding same-sex citizens? what kind of principles are those? is that what we want to set as an example to our children!? "kids, it's ok for you to get married & be a parent, even if you've killed people, but if you're gay, we don't think you'd be a fit parent, and you might destroy the moral fabric of our society!!" ?? seriously, that's the way it stands right now - how anyone can defend that as right and proper is beyond me...

wow, that was much more than i intended to write! sorry about that...

[Msterbeau]

yeah, i know i'm a little late on this, but i thought i'd throw my $.01 in! (not sure i'm bright enough for $.02!!)

here's the part that bothers me most about this topic - there are only two sides of it, from my viewpoint... those who are (or want to be) inclusionary, and those who are (or want to be) exclusionary.

the basic debate here is about the organized-religion aspects of marriage, and the government's role in it. to be honest, the government should have nothing to do with the recognition of the religious aspects of a legally binding union. x-tian, muslim, jewish, santarian, what-have-you - these ceremonies should have nothing to do with the debate as relates to governmentally recognized unions, AT ALL! the government has no business endorsing/promoting/excluding one religion or another, period! this entire argument could be settled if we took the religious aspects out of the government's involvement altogether - you want a x-tian wedding? great!! go have one after getting your "civil union" recognized by the proper govt. "authorities". you want a jewish wedding? muslim? hindu? druidic? have at it, and more power to you! just leave that part out of "our" government! the simple fact that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" goes against the basic principles upon which this nation was founded - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - FOR ALL!! not for "those of us who fit into a particular group/mold/category"... when bush wanted to amend the constitution as relates to this, what he was really attempting was to draft exclusionary/discriminatory legislation into our constitution!! there can be no defensible denial that the "one man, one woman" stance is discriminatory. it's exclusionary in its nature, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in this country's constitution, laws or anything else of an official nature.

it was mentioned that, based on some people's experiences (steven's, for example, because he's been the most vocal in this thread about it - sorry to drag you back in, bud!) homosexuality = promiscuity, as a general rule. while this may be true in his experience, (and i don't in any way deny/refute that) the thing that bothers me is the fact that people who agree with his take on things won't seem to allow for the fact that others have had different experiences, (homosexuality = monogamy, as a general rule) and theirs are just as valid. (this would be my experience) this should be proof enough that the "gay lifestyle" has the same kind of issues as the "straight lifestyle". if i were a gambling man, i'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 10 "straight" people, *at least* 50% would admit to either cheating, or being cheated on, (and i'd say that number is more likely 80% or higher) and i'd also bet that the numbers would coincide with those in the "gay" community. fact is, our society sucks at relationships! it has very little to do with sexual orientation - nobody communicates. be that as it may, what right does that give heterosexuals to deny the right to commit, to a couple who love each other? (please don't use the religious/moral argument - religious connotations should have nothing to do with govt. recognized commitment) this is supposed to be a land of freedom and equality! not just for those in control, or those who fit a certain mold, but every law-abiding citizen! what next? are we going to go back and disallow bi-racial marriages? are we going to set age limits, like no more than 5 yr difference? hell, convicted murderers can get married and be parents!! are we saying that we'd rather have that as a family unit than two law-abiding same-sex citizens? what kind of principles are those? is that what we want to set as an example to our children!? "kids, it's ok for you to get married & be a parent, even if you've killed people, but if you're gay, we don't think you'd be a fit parent, and you might destroy the moral fabric of our society!!" ?? seriously, that's the way it stands right now - how anyone can defend that as right and proper is beyond me...

wow, that was much more than i intended to write! sorry about that...

Well said.. and I totally agree. Thanks for saving me some typing.

[Fierce Critter]

Torn I rarely agree 100% with things you say.

But this is one of the rare occasions that I do.

[torn asunder]

Torn I rarely agree 100% with things you say.

But this is one of the rare occasions that I do.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Well my final thoughts on this topic are that you can't really stereotype gay relationships and assume they're not lasting. I know several gay couples that have been together for many years. I have hung out in many gay bars, i.e. Stilletos and Gigis, and met people who have lasting relationships there as well. The success ratio doesn't seem that much different than the success ratio for heterosexuals. Most relationships period fail. That's just life. You can't stereotype gays though, because of your personal experience with the couples you've met. Who isn't in love and thinking of marriage after a year or two? So the shit hits the fan and it doesn't work out. This is no different than it is for anybody.

[phee]

yeah, i know i'm a little late on this, but i thought i'd throw my $.01 in! (not sure i'm bright enough for $.02!!)

here's the part that bothers me most about this topic - there are only two sides of it, from my viewpoint... those who are (or want to be) inclusionary, and those who are (or want to be) exclusionary.

the basic debate here is about the organized-religion aspects of marriage, and the government's role in it. to be honest, the government should have nothing to do with the recognition of the religious aspects of a legally binding union. x-tian, muslim, jewish, santarian, what-have-you - these ceremonies should have nothing to do with the debate as relates to governmentally recognized unions, AT ALL! the government has no business endorsing/promoting/excluding one religion or another, period! this entire argument could be settled if we took the religious aspects out of the government's involvement altogether - you want a x-tian wedding? great!! go have one after getting your "civil union" recognized by the proper govt. "authorities". you want a jewish wedding? muslim? hindu? druidic? have at it, and more power to you! just leave that part out of "our" government! the simple fact that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" goes against the basic principles upon which this nation was founded - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - FOR ALL!! not for "those of us who fit into a particular group/mold/category"... when bush wanted to amend the constitution as relates to this, what he was really attempting was to draft exclusionary/discriminatory legislation into our constitution!! there can be no defensible denial that the "one man, one woman" stance is discriminatory. it's exclusionary in its nature, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in this country's constitution, laws or anything else of an official nature.

it was mentioned that, based on some people's experiences (steven's, for example, because he's been the most vocal in this thread about it - sorry to drag you back in, bud!) homosexuality = promiscuity, as a general rule. while this may be true in his experience, (and i don't in any way deny/refute that) the thing that bothers me is the fact that people who agree with his take on things won't seem to allow for the fact that others have had different experiences, (homosexuality = monogamy, as a general rule) and theirs are just as valid. (this would be my experience) this should be proof enough that the "gay lifestyle" has the same kind of issues as the "straight lifestyle". if i were a gambling man, i'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 10 "straight" people, *at least* 50% would admit to either cheating, or being cheated on, (and i'd say that number is more likely 80% or higher) and i'd also bet that the numbers would coincide with those in the "gay" community. fact is, our society sucks at relationships! it has very little to do with sexual orientation - nobody communicates. be that as it may, what right does that give heterosexuals to deny the right to commit, to a couple who love each other? (please don't use the religious/moral argument - religious connotations should have nothing to do with govt. recognized commitment) this is supposed to be a land of freedom and equality! not just for those in control, or those who fit a certain mold, but every law-abiding citizen! what next? are we going to go back and disallow bi-racial marriages? are we going to set age limits, like no more than 5 yr difference? hell, convicted murderers can get married and be parents!! are we saying that we'd rather have that as a family unit than two law-abiding same-sex citizens? what kind of principles are those? is that what we want to set as an example to our children!? "kids, it's ok for you to get married & be a parent, even if you've killed people, but if you're gay, we don't think you'd be a fit parent, and you might destroy the moral fabric of our society!!" ?? seriously, that's the way it stands right now - how anyone can defend that as right and proper is beyond me...

wow, that was much more than i intended to write! sorry about that...

TA... thank you for stating this so clearly... I think if I were a more elequent man... I would have liked to have said it this way!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Torn, I only take issue with one small thing. The religion part. Only because Marrige is not a religious thing. Not at it's core. It's an oath taken between two people. Religion is a recent arrival into the mix followed shortly after by government. Marrige, the core of it, is OLD. It outdates every known religion. It crosses all cultural boundries. Not everyone who opposes gay marrige opposes it for religious reasons. Infact, that accounts for a smaller percentage.

The majority oppose it becuase it is a core principle in the human relationship. A corner stone. People fear moving that corner stone becaue the stucture may fall.

[saechalyn]

Well stated, Torn. I can't think of anything to add.

[BrassFusion]

Torn, I only take issue with one small thing. The religion part. Only because Marrige is not a religious thing. Not at it's core. It's an oath taken between two people. Religion is a recent arrival into the mix followed shortly after by government. Marrige, the core of it, is OLD. It outdates every known religion. It crosses all cultural boundries. Not everyone who opposes gay marrige opposes it for religious reasons. Infact, that accounts for a smaller percentage.

Sources? Also, I'd be interested in sources that confirm that no culture has ever joined two people of the same sex in that culture's version of holy matrimony.

The majority oppose it becuase it is a core principle in the human relationship. A corner stone. People fear moving that corner stone becaue the stucture may fall.

Nah, the majority oppose it because the majority are sheep; they feel it's their patriotic duty to treat gay people like second-class citizens. And I am NOT accusing anyone on the board of that, I'll clear that up right now!

[torn asunder]

Nah, the majority oppose it because the majority are sheep; they feel it's their patriotic duty to treat gay people like second-class citizens. And I am NOT accusing anyone on the board of that, I'll clear that up right now!

well, i wouldn't go so far as that...

and gaf, i agree that what we currently call "marriage" is old, but so is homosexuality. why shouldn't two people in love, be able to publicly proclaim their commitment to one another? as a core principle, (as you put it) what lies at the heart of the core? the intent is for those involved to show dedication, commitment, love, honor, etc... to each other, so as to create a stable family environment. how would this be detrimental to our current culture, with "gays" included? if the argument is procreation, all i can say is that it's gonna take a lot more than gay marriage to get people to stop fornicating and procreating! and actually, if a gay couple can provide a good, loving, stable environment, (since they can't have their own children) wouldn't that be a perfect place for an orphan, or for an adoptive child of a child, who can't care for her own? is it fear that "gays" will corrupt the children? how so? the only "corruption" i can see coming from that is learning "tolerance", or more appropriately, *acceptance* of people with differing belief systems. beyond the religious upheaval it would cause, i honestly fail to see a downside to allowing "civil unions" for everyone, with people choosing their own form of religious ceremony as a personal commitment before family/friends/their "god"...