Welcome to Missouri!

[Rose]

One has to wonder why people are so scared to share a simple word. If rights and benefits are the same under the title "civil union", what's the problem giving them the title of marriage. I think people are afraid, personally.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Words have value my dear.

It not about fear, its about values.

[edit]

If the simplistic value of the word means nothing, then why do they so badly desire it?

 

[Rose]

hmmm values. I don't buy it. It is so badly desired for equality. Otherwise homosexuals may as well be the second-class citizens that (you and others like you) seem to want them to be.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Nothing second hand about it. The rights are the same. Why do they insist on having the word apply to them??? Becasue it has value. They want that value bestowed upon them which it currently does not. They are looking for the legitiamcy and validation of the word. Nothing else changes.

Homosexuality may be accepted that it is lifestyle, it is not validated nor endorsed by most citizens.

 

[Rose]

Homosexuality may be accepted that it is lifestyle, it is not validated nor endorsed by most citizens.

And? I still don't get the big fuss. I don't endorse homosexuality. I've known very few homosexuals, and wouldn't dare judge all of them on the ones I have known. I don't think their lifestyle is right. It kinda freaks me out a bit.

But that doesn't mean I don't think they should be able to do their thing.

Maybe I'm just apathetic, but I just cannot grasp what the big fuss is all about if it isn't a fear of homosexuality.

 

[PT]

Why does the homosexual feel entitled to it? Marriage has long been the base of the family unit, meaning production and rearing of off-spring. Where as the homosexual ‘family’ is mere cohabitation for the sake of company, as their can be nothing further biologically produced. If its about being lovers, then call it that! "Civil Lovers"

Now this does sound reasonable. However, my wife had her tubes tied before we got married. She and I can no longer produce off-spring. There is not going to be any further biological production. So are we just Civil Lovers now?

 

[Gonz]

Homosexuals are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem? Their choice of partner. Society, community standards, has rules & regulartions. I can't marry a cat & Adam can't marry Steve.

Since many rules, regulations & laws have been designed with the traditional family unit in mind they have set a precedent. Changing this without the will of the people is going to be tough. Changing this will judical rulings & nominations will create havoc. If it's no big deal then leave well enough alone. If there's more to the story (my vote) pass the agenda on and allow all to see what is ultimately behind this.

 

[rrfield]

Maybe I'm just apathetic, but I just cannot grasp what the big fuss is all about if it isn't a fear of homosexuality.

You pretty much nailed it - fear. The fear that the homosexuals will change America. The fear of something they can't (or refuse to) understand. The fear that they will "convert" their children. The fear that things won't be how they were in 1955. The fear that one minority group might change the way society views things.

The fear that their precious "American Way Of Life" will change. Any by Americans too, not Al Qaeda.

For some people it's far easier to simply hate what they do not understand rather then try to understand it.

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Still, I stand by my earlier post. The government has no business marrying people. Everyone should get civily unionized by the gov't and let churches marry people. Catholics won't marry homosexuals. Unitarians will.

 

[Gonz]

Catholics won't marry homosexuals. Unitarians will.

That sir is where you & (presumably) most of your fellow believers are incorrect. If homosexuals are allowed to be civilly wed they will, today or tomorrow, force the government to make religions follow suit.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Rose,

It isn’t fear most cases, it’s the devaluation of the rite of marriage. Most people accept it as a lifestyle, but the do not approve it as normal or healthy behavior. They don’t feel it honors the title of marriage. They can still “do their thing” only under a different “simple word” title.



Peter,

No the natural potential was/is there, plenty of men and women can’t produce offspring due to ‘factors’, but the natural potential is there (the unknown factor) as well as there are people that have been told “you will never be able to produce children” and low and behold they do.

You can toss all the exceptions you want; we are bound certain natural laws reproduction is one of them.

Maybe if one-sex of the gay community bought an island in the pacific, isolated their ‘families’ on it and then evolution could make a viable way for them to reproduce? (like frogs and fish do) . . . .and they can make all the laws they want, they can get married there too.

rr.

There is a movement of re-education going on, there is a movement to build homosexuals, convert young people to a homosexual lifestyle. I have seen it first hand on several levels.

 

[rrfield]

That sir is where you & (presumably) most of your fellow believers are incorrect. If homosexuals are allowed to be civilly wed they will, today or tomorrow, force the government to make religions follow suit.

I'll have to respectfully disagree here. Even the most left leaning judges wouldn't step over this church-state line.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
-- Thomas Jefferson

They have the same rights.

('cept those laws pertaining to HIV/AID's patients, they have extra special rights that supercede mine)

 

[Gonz]

I'll have to respectfully disagree here. Even the most left leaning judges wouldn't step over this church-state line.

Wait, is that an echo from 196x, back when they only wanted to come out of the closet peaceably.

 

[PT]

Peter,

No the natural potential was/is there, plenty of men and women can’t produce offspring due to ‘factors’, but the natural potential is there (the unknown factor) as well as there are people that have been told “you will never be able to produce children” and low and behold they do.

You can toss all the exceptions you want; we are bound certain natural laws reproduction is one of them.

Maybe if one-sex of the gay community bought an island in the pacific, isolated their ‘families’ on it and then evolution could make a viable way for them to reproduce? (like frogs and fish do) . . . .and they can make all the laws they want, they can get married there too.

First of all, my name isn't Peter, unless you're trying to call me a Dick, then please. Just do it.

The natural potential is not there, we do not want to produce more children, nor is it at all why we got married. We got married because we love each other and want to be together. Much like many gay couples that would just like to put more of a commitment to their relationship. I'm still waiting for a valid answer as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to be married other than that it offends you.

 

[Gonz]

I'm still waiting for a valid answer as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to be married other than that it offends you.

Homosexuals are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I.

 

[PT]

Ok Gonz, I'll make it simpler if you want to finish playing your little game.

How about an answer as to why a man can't marry another man or a woman can't marry another woman?

 

[Gonz]

Community standards

 

[Gato_Solo]

Now this does sound reasonable. However, my wife had her tubes tied before we got married. She and I can no longer produce off-spring. There is not going to be any further biological production. So are we just Civil Lovers now?

But at one point, your wife could produce offspring, could she not? And please tell me that two different people of the same sex have the proper biological plumbing neccesary to produce offspring. Even a sterile woman has the proper plumbing to carr a child. A man does not...and as far as I know no woman can produce sperm. Please produce an argument that doesn't induce an emotional response...

 

[ResearchMonkey]

First of all, my name isn't Peter, unless you're trying to call me a Dick, then please. Just do it.

The natural potential is not there, we do not want to produce more children, nor is it at all why we got married.

Sorry for the typo.

The procedures of tubal ligation and nuetered-lite are very modern, but for the rest of history it didn’t matter how much you 'didn’t want kids', you ran the chance of it every time you do the deed. Artifically you have pererted the the natural selection.

Why can’t homosexual marry? Simply a homosexual is a different type of relationship. There is never the chance to further the human cause.

Homosexual relationships can not serve anything but the selfishness of the relationship. Whereas hertrosexual marriages largely leads to child producing families; which is about altruistic sacrifice and character, the healthy promotion of the species.

Why don’t you make a list of why they are the same? Justify it in clear behavioral terms. (alcoholism is not a civil rights issue either)

 

[Thulsa Doom]

My god. The same old tired used up arguments over and over again. When will the anti-homosexual crowd just say you cant get married because 1. god says so! or 2. its disgusting! Or both. Then wed have an honest point of view finally. Stop squirming and trying to thread a needle with your wording. Face the fact that you are endorsing discrimination and embrace it. After all the majority of americans agree with this same bigotry dont they?

Homosexuals are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem? Their choice of partner. Society, community standards, has rules & regulartions. I can't marry a cat & Adam can't marry Steve.

Lets step back to 1950 shall we:

Blacks are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem? Their choice of partner. Society, community standards, has rules & regulartions. I can't marry a cat & Blacks can't marry whites.

Isnt it cool how you can so easily substitute mid 20th century racism directly into 21st century anti-homosexual logic? I love that.