Welcome to Missouri!

[Gato_Solo]

But the point is you brought up examples that were in no way parallel to homosexuality. Im assuming thats what you were meaning to do with your hyperbole? correct me if im wrong of course. so the logical response was to point out that homosexuality doesnt hurt others or infringe on your personal freedoms like killing or raping does (you can go ahead and drink all you want since thats your own problem. although even this causes far more societal harm then homosexuality. and we allow drunks to get married anyway).

And anyway you didn’t say much more in that post. And is selective quoting not a perfectly normal tactic in message board debates? When you’ve got a guy like me who can prey on any part of what you say it keeps you sharp and on your toes. You should be thanking me.

The post was about what people choose to do...are we okay now, TD?

BTW...why did you drop the name Flavio?

 

[Gonz]

 

[[b]]

Well here's a response I'm sure none of you saw coming...

If Missouri doesn't want to let gay people marry, then good for the state of Missouri. Since the inception of our country, marriage, and the laws that govern it, has always been left up for the states to decide. If Florida decided that gays weren't allowed to marry, and I felt that it was more worth it to me to be married then to stay here, then I'd move to a state that allowed gay marriage. However, it is NOT for the federal government to decide this issue and a national vote is not something that should ever be considered. Smaller states that might want to allow gay marriages would be fucked by a national vote that would more than likely ban gay marriage.

Ok, here's my response to the gay marriage vs. civil unions: First and foremost, no one knocked on my door and offered me a civil union. I did not turn my nose up and slam the door in the face of civil unions. As stated before I'm not at a point in my life where I want to be married. But gay superheroes must go where they're called, so here I am. There are gay people out there who will be happy to have a civil union that gives them all the rights that being married does, and there are those who won't be happy unless they can say they are married and have it mean what it does to straight people.

"But why?!?" you cry out, "it's just a word, take your civil unions and leave us alone!!!"

Well you see, it's not JUST a word. If marriage and civil union carried the same weight then a) straight people wouldn't get their tits all in a bunch when homos wanna use it and b) their wouldn't be two separate terms, marriage and civil union.

So, why would gay people keep fighting to use the word marriage instead of just being happy with civil unions? Because to those gay people, marriage means everything to them that it does to straight people, only gay people aren't so stuck up on themselves that they think that the word marriage can only apply to them. Marriage means family. Not sexual reproduction. Marriage means love, commitment, honesty, understanding, trust... If a family is nothing more than a man, a women, 2.5 kids and a dog then our society is truly fucked. A family should consist of a group of people living together that provide love and stability for each other, not a means for producing children. Any whore on the street can pop out kids, it takes a family to raise them.

So why can't that family consist of two men or two women living together raising children that they have either conceived by taking on a sperm donor or surrogate mother, or by adopting the thousands of children who's natural parents can't or won't take care of them. And if you can look at that situation and say, "Hey, that's a family." then why not give the parents in that family the honorific title of being married. If marriage is all about the family values and this gay family is teaching their children all the accepted family values, with the difference that they don't try to pass off homosexuality as some sort of freakish disease destined to destroy the world (I believe I've posted enough on what makes a person gay) then why can't they be married?

It's as if you think that homosexuals don't understand the gravity of what they are asking, as if we're simply children who want something because mommy and daddy said we can't have it. Well that's bullshit... we want marriage because we DO understand what we're asking for and we believe that we are responsible enough to handle marriage with the respect it deserves. We don't want to lower the bar for marriage (heteros are doing that well enough on their own) but instead raise that bar, only you guys are too scared to let us try. Why? Because what in the world would happen if we showed you up? Talk about embarrassing...

And just to draw a parallel here... the back of the bus gets to the station at the same time the front of the bus does, and the water coming out of the coloreds only fountain tastes just the same as the one coming out of the white's only fountain not two feet from it, and if these people had settled for this "same, but not quite the same" treatment, think of where we'd be today.

Since the topic of this was marriage I won't delve into the ludicrousness of statements such as

Homosexuality has become an accepted anomaly of human nature, especially among men, most people find plain wrong. Most people consider it to be dirty an un-natural and maybe even a sexual disfunction or addiction.

Since all a gay union can produce is another selfish week-end at the bath house, it is not the same. There is no possibility of biological growth, quite literally, it is a dead end.

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.(this made me laugh until I almost peed my pants. so I went to the bathroom, peed, then laughed some more)

Homosexual relationships can not serve anything but the selfishness of the relationship. Whereas heterosexual marriages largely leads to child producing families; which is about altruistic sacrifice and character, the healthy promotion of the species. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, crap I have to pee again...)

Homosexuals are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying.

What's it matter if we're not prohibited from marrying if it's not recognized. Your point is pointless.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Don’t flatter yourself that is all rehash. If you’re done pee’ing on yourself I will address this.

Gay people and straight people do not see marriage the same. Gay people see it as a declaration of love only. Straight people too see it as love but they also see it as the beginning of a family, a chance to grow the community and further the wholesome ideals of society. Whether or not they ever produce children the natural potential is there.

In another thread you stated that that heterosexual marriage was ‘a fucked-up institution of divorce and not bright and shiny’ (~give or take). Your right, the concept of consequence-free living is one of the things that made getting a divorce so easy. There was a time not so long ago divorce was difficult and people really had to consider the consequences before they entered into the rite of marriage. So the liberal ideals have already lowered the bar, thanks.

What I am reading is that there is validity given with the title of “marriage”. Clearly there is; it has been a traditional rite that once held more value than it does today, true dat! It still represents wholesome ideals of love, family, and the promotion of community.

And that is what this is really about it isn’t it, validation.

There is a desire for the validation and the equality of heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships from the title “marriage”.

Well laughing boy, they are similar, but there are fundamental differences between the two relationships. They are not equal.

Just because someone want to be included does not mean that they will be. Societal evolution is what has defined marriage over the century’s; that is the development of social norms through the life and death of thousands of generations. And now you want to change the definition to meet your need for validation. Is that right so far?

Laws.

I fully understand why you wouldn’t like a national vote, and you’re right, you would lose. The problem in that lies in the fact that once a single state recognizes a gay marriage all the states must honor those marriages (we have court cases coming up I’m sure). So your “I would have to move” holds no value as a point. The issue becomes federal at that point, they want to keep the traditional definition as is.

This is not a civil rights issue as all the rights of marriage would be equal in the civil union, therefore no right would be denied. The question is social and society does not see it as you do.

 

[[b]]

What?! You won't let me marry and now I can't even flatter myself? Oh the humanity! Help Help I'm being oppressed!

Oh, and thanks for knowing how gay people see marriage. I had no idea that you were an expert on the homosexual mindset. All this time I was asking GAY people how they felt about marriage. Silly me... I shoulda come to you right from the beginning. I bow down to your superior insight into the diseased mind that is the homosexual psyche. I mean it's obvious that we would have no idea of what family values are or the desire to want to reproduce them in families of our own. I mean, what could hell spawn demons possessed with the desire for same sex relationships know about family values? Once again I am in awe of your insight.

I never said that marriage was a fucked up institution, though that's a valid train of thought seeing the sad shape marriage is in these days. But heteros did that without the help of gay people. As stated before, we have no desire to taint the sanctity of marriage but to help restore marriage once more to the gold standard for relationships in world society. Of course, that is coming from the mouth of a gay person, and you, with your superior hetero abilities to know what our real agenda is, has, of course, a much more deeper understanding of what we want and are thinking then we do. Thank god I've met you.

If what you're getting out of what I'm saying is that we desire "validity", well I was gonna say that wasn't the case, but then, I forget I'm speaking to an expert on homosexual thoughts and desires. However, I'll try to explain it anyway. Marriage is a rite, not a right… Ok, I'll go with that. It's a religious rite. Hmm, could it be possible that gay people believe in god? Heavens NO! How can that be? Demonic skin flute sucking homos believing in god? I suppose we must be lowering the bar of christianity as well. I mean, it's not like heteros have ever changed their belief in god to suit their needs *cough* king henry *cough*

So yes, I suppose that those of us who want marriage might want the validity of being married in front of their god. The wonders of religious freedom in a country founded on it but that refuses to practice it.

I love though how you tell me that heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages are not equal without some sort of prattle about why that is. So enlighten me o' golden one? What are the differences? Anal Sex? The ability to procreate? Two bearded faces pressed together under the cover of darkness? Well anal sex isn't just a homo thing… any google search will show you just as many chicks with schlongs in all the wrong holes as guys with the same thing. Procreation has NOTHING to do with it. That's a sad, last ditch hope that by proving we "don't all have proper plumbing" will somehow make your bigotry ok. As for the last part… well, maybe you got me there, but I'm sure as hell looking forward to that later on tonight.

Oh, here's something else fun you said. " Just because someone want to be included does not mean that they will be." How right you are, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

But this is the best part… (sometimes it amazes me that people don't read what they type.)

Societal evolution is what has defined marriage over the century’s; that is the development of social norms through the life and death of thousands of generations. And now you want to change the definition to meet your need for validation

So, the societal evolution of marriage is how the definition of marriage has changed due to the development of social norms over thousands generations. And what gay people want to do is to take a couple of generations to develop social norms that redefine marriage as something that includes them. Ah, so what gay people wanna do is what's always been done. Yeah, I think you've got it right so far…

And to tackle your last little bit of fluff…Let's first think about what happened the last time the national government tried to step all over states rights…we had a civil war. Marriage always has been defined by the states. You want to take that away because you're afraid YOU'LL lose if it's left up to the states. Read the law, I did an English Research paper on this subject, so I'll just tell ya. States DON'T have to recognize another state's marriages. There is no law that says they have to. Most states do so anyway just because it's convenient, but no law is going to make them. And since the movement to quaff this at a national level as already FAILED, why not say, "Hey, let the faggots try!" At worst you'd be right and you can laugh in our silly little faces when we fail. At best, I can come back here and laugh until I pee again.

Until that time I can only hope that you never reach a real position of power. I suppose I'd better go make another sacrifice to the dark lord my father to make sure that never happens.

 

[freako104]

its good to have you back

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Oh, and thanks for knowing how gay people see marriage. I had no idea that you were an expert on the homosexual mindset. All this time I was asking GAY people how they felt about marriage. Silly me... I shoulda come to you right from the beginning. I bow down to your superior insight into the diseased mind that is the homosexual psyche. I mean it's obvious that we would have no idea of what family values are or the desire to want to reproduce them in families of our own. I mean, what could hell spawn demons possessed with the desire for same sex relationships know about family values? Once again I am in awe of your insight.

I know I've said this before, but since it's been a while I'll say it again. It is my personal philosophy that marriage is nothing more than me saying, "Hey, will you marry me." and that person saying, "Yes."

Why would homosexuals want marriage? After my rant about what the "title evolved [into] over the centuries" has evolved into, I have no clue as to why we'd want to be a part of it. I certainly don't. At least not how it's described today. However, there are a few things that are nice about being married that I see no reason why homosexuals should be excluded. Health Care for example.

OK, so it’s for greed as well as validity, sorry for the mistake. . . and thanx for noticing

I never said that marriage was a fucked up institution, though that's a valid train of thought seeing the sad shape marriage is in these days.

If heterosexual marriages were all the wholesome, loving, as-god-intended-it-to-be sacred institutions heterosexuals would like for us to believe they are, then can someone please explain to me the high divorce rate in this country, or why there are such things as prenuptial agreements, or why people think Anna Nicole is a money grubbing slut who married an old man for his money, or why I can turn on the TV and watch programs like Cheaters, Who Wants to Marry a Stupid Rich Guy, Who Wants to Marry a Midget, Trading Spouses, or any number of programs where smucks parade around kissing each other for two weeks to see if some guy or girl is "the one" only to find out that their choice is you or a check big enough to retire on? Oh, and lets not even get started on big celeb weddings that last anywhere from 55 hours to two weeks.

Like I said, give or take, you said marriage was ‘fucked-up’

If what you're getting out of what I'm saying is that we desire "validity", well I was gonna say that wasn't the case, but then, I forget I'm speaking to an expert on homosexual thoughts and desires. However, I'll try to explain it anyway. Marriage is a rite, not a right… Ok, I'll go with that. It's a religious rite. Hmm, could it be possible that gay people believe in god? Heavens NO! How can that be? Demonic skin flute sucking homos believing in god? I suppose we must be lowering the bar of christianity as well. I mean, it's not like heteros have ever changed their belief in god to suit their needs *cough* king henry *cough*

The church is the body that dictates church policy, most churches do not condone the behavior.

So yes, I suppose that those of us who want marriage might want the validity of being married in front of their god. The wonders of religious freedom in a country founded on it but that refuses to practice it.

No one prevents you from practicing religion of any faith, you have religious freedom.

I love though how you tell me that heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages are not equal without some sort of prattle about why that is. So enlighten me o' golden one? What are the differences? Anal Sex? The ability to procreate? Two bearded faces pressed together under the cover of darkness? Well anal sex isn't just a homo thing… any google search will show you just as many chicks with schlongs in all the wrong holes as guys with the same thing. Procreation has NOTHING to do with it. That's a sad, last ditch hope that by proving we "don't all have proper plumbing" will somehow make your bigotry ok. As for the last part… well, maybe you got me there, but I'm sure as hell looking forward to that later on tonight.

Thanks calling me a bigot, how little you really know. (ask Ms.Cleo to send you your $5 back)

Yes, procreation and plumbing has much to with it, you catch on quickly. How does one consummate homosexual marriage? Slapping their johnsons together? (in the word of ThuslaD “exactly”)

Oh, here's something else fun you said. " Just because someone want to be included does not mean that they will be." How right you are, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Oh-ho-ho, you’re sharp, I thought I was going slip that one by you nice eye Dick Tracey. Point stands as a double edge blade.

But this is the best part… (sometimes it amazes me that people don't read what they type.)

Originally Posted by ResearchMonkey

Societal evolution is what has defined marriage over the century’s; that is the development of social norms through the life and death of thousands of generations. And now you want to change the definition to meet your need for validation

It amazes me that some people’s abilty to track has such a low threshhold.

So, the societal evolution of marriage is how the definition of marriage has changed due to the development of social norms over thousands generations. And what gay people want to do is to take a couple of generations to develop social norms that redefine marriage as something that includes them. Ah, so what gay people wanna do is what's always been done. Yeah, I think you've got it right so far…

They have had thousands of years and many opportunities to accepted, but each time society has bumped the behavior back out on its ass. There have been times where homosexuality and pedophilia was all the social rage, but again, social evolution has rejected it every time.

And to tackle your last little bit of fluff…Let's first think about what happened the last time the national government tried to step all over states rights…we had a civil war. Marriage always has been defined by the states. You want to take that away because you're afraid YOU'LL lose if it's left up to the states. Read the law, I did an English Research paper on this subject, so I'll just tell ya. States DON'T have to recognize another state's marriages. There is no law that says they have to. Most states do so anyway just because it's convenient, but no law is going to make them. And since the movement to quaff this at a national level as already FAILED, why not say, "Hey, let the faggots try!" At worst you'd be right and you can laugh in our silly little faces when we fail. At best, I can come back here and laugh until I pee again.

So explain to me more about the full faith and credit report you did. *quivers at the thought he may have even more high-school term papers at the ready*

Using your own wonderful logic: Since you gave it a whirl and most people quieffed against it, why don’t you quit and accept civil unions. Oh I forgot, hypocrisy is allowed by liberals.

Until that time I can only hope that you never reach a real position of power. I suppose I'd better go make another sacrifice to the dark lord my father to make sure that never happens.

Oh, now that is scary. God forbid that I would ever have the life of a homosexual in my charge, who knows what my bigotry and homophobia might do.



Well my friend, I had higher expectations from you.

I give you that you’re both witty and literate which makes your post fun to read, you express your flamboyant colors proudly. Although I must tell you; you offer little in the art of debate. Instead you’re sarcastic comments, sexual bravado and general vile attempt to label are nothing more than childish attempts to make emotion sound like logical reasoning.

Grow up son.

 

[[b]]

OK, so it’s for greed as well as validity, sorry for the mistake. . . and thanx for noticing

Well I suppose if wanting better health coverage (i.e. sharing your partners benefits gives you better coverage) is greedy, then yes, we're greedy. Out of curiosity, how many hetero couples reading this thread share medical benefits with a spouse? Which one of you had the better health care when you got married and how long did it take the other one to get on that policy once you got hitched?

Like I said, give or take, you said marriage was ‘fucked-up’

I suppose you can continue to believe that is what I'm saying if you want. That is, however, not what I am saying. What I have (unsuccessfully it seems) been trying to point out is that everything is not puppy dogs and roses when it comes to marriage these days. Having read nearly every thread on this board having to do with the subject, it seems that the overall belief is that homosexuals are going to taint the "sacred institution" of marriage. What I'm trying to get across is that marriage has flaws that are there that have nothing to do with homosexuals, and to make it clear that "we" are not out to destroy, taint, or otherwise tarnish marriage and what it should stand for. Once again, it is my firm belief that by allowing homosexuals to marry it will only strengthen the views on marriage that society has today.

The church is the body that dictates church policy; most churches do not condone the behavior.
No one prevents you from practicing religion of any faith, you have religious freedom.

Most churches do not, but there are some that do. If marriage is a religious rite, and a church that does condone "that behavior" presides over same sex matrimony, then why wouldn't the word "marriage" apply to them? If two guys get hitched in a church, then let marriage apply to them, if they just sign some papers in front of a clerk of the court, then let civil union apply to them. But let those same rules apply to hetero couples. Church = marriage, court = civil union.

Thanks calling me a bigot, how little you really know. (ask Ms.Cleo to send you your $5 back)

This I apologize for. The "your" in that sentence was not directed specifically at you, but at anyone reading the message who held those beliefs. Off topic, what does Ms. Cleo have to do with it?

Yes, procreation and plumbing has much to with it, you catch on quickly. How does one consummate homosexual marriage? Slapping their johnsons together?

Is it safe to assume these are rhetorical questions? You don't really think we just stand around cock fighting do you?

Oh-ho-ho, you’re sharp, I thought I was going slip that one by you nice eye Dick Tracey. Point stands as a double edge blade.

You're right there as well, just because they shouldn't doesn't mean they should. But this isn't about admission of a girl into the boy scouts or some man wanting to work as a waiter at Hooters. The boy scouts are a private organization, Hooters is a themed eating establishment (if you can call that crap food). It is my belief that marriage doesn't fall within those parameters. While the decision to marry a person is a private matter, marriage itself is a public institution, and therefore should be available to all members of the pubic to privately decide who they wish to marry.

They have had thousands of years and many opportunities to accepted, but each time society has bumped the behavior back out on its ass. There have been times where homosexuality and pedophilia was all the social rage, but again, social evolution has rejected it every time.

This is your basis for not giving it a chance now? A lot has happened since the days when Romans fed christians to lions, Catholics burned heretics at the stake and Hitler rounded up homosexuals as one of the first groups to be put in concentration death camps. Progress is made by people who never give up. I would hope that with a forward thinking society such as ours we wouldn't simply go, "Hey, a bunch of people in the past who had way crazy ideas about how the world works didn't like it, so neither should I."

So explain to me more about the full faith and credit report you did. *quivers at the thought he may have even more high-school term papers at the ready*

Actually, it was a college paper, and I'll have to find it. But I will, and I'll be happy to let you read it when I do.

Using your own wonderful logic: Since you gave it a whirl and most people quieffed against it, why don’t you quit and accept civil unions. Oh I forgot, hypocrisy is allowed by liberals.

Since we gave "what" are whirl? And since you've mentioned this before, can you please show me where it's stated that the homosexual public has said that we refuse civil unions? If hypocrisy is allowed by liberals, is it standard practice for conservatives?

God forbid that I would ever have the life of a homosexual in my charge, who knows what my bigotry and homophobia might do.

So, what would you do if you had the life of a homosexual in your charge?

I give you that you’re both witty and literate which makes your post fun to read, you express your flamboyant colors proudly.

Thanks!

...you offer little in the art of debate. Instead you’re sarcastic comments, sexual bravado and general vile attempt to label are nothing more than childish attempts to make emotion sound like logical reasoning.

As far as what I offer in debate... So far there has been little TO debate. If you want to argue plumbing and procreation, well you've got me there. You're right; I can't change my ass into a functioning uterus. You win, but you will never convince me that the sole role of marriage is to produce children. Marriage is a commitment to family, and families come in all types, not just those that include genetic copies of the adults. If you can't see past this, then there is no debate, there is no conversation. I have offered plenty of issues that I think add greatly to what's been said here. Yes, I've been sarcastic, yes, I've used sexual bravado, and perhaps I've thrown out a few "vile labels", but, if you were to look at the context of what was said, you'd understand WHY they were used. You'd probably realize I've said a lot more than what you've picked up on.

 

[chcr]

Having read nearly every thread on this board having to do with the subject, it seems that the overall belief is that homosexuals are going to taint the "sacred institution" of marriage.

Sorry to disagree, , but I think there are not more than five members who espouse that position. Some of them are noisy members, I'll grant you, but there aren't very many of them. Here you go

 

[Oz]

Sorry to disagree, , but I think there are not more than five members who espouse that position. Some of them are noisy members, I'll grant you, but there aren't very many of them. Here you go

Too right, the rest of us don't fool ourselves that life is, ever was, or should be like an episode of The Waltons

 

[[b]]

Chcr and Oz,

Once again in my haste to reply I generalized all the members of this forum into one group. I'm well aware that there are supporters of gay marriage that post here and I'm very greateful to each of you. As (as far as I'm aware anyway) the only openly gay person here, I make the mistake of thinking that I'm alone in trying to fight this fight. It's the Gay Superhero Extraordinaire in me. If it weren't for people like you guys I wouldn't have come back. Thanks, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

 

[PT]

Chcr and Oz,

Once again in my haste to reply I generalized all the members of this forum into one group. I'm well aware that there are supporters of gay marriage that post here and I'm very greateful to each of you. As (as far as I'm aware anyway) the only openly gay person here, I make the mistake of thinking that I'm alone in trying to fight this fight. It's the Gay Superhero Extraordinaire in me. If it weren't for people like you guys I wouldn't have come back. Thanks, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

No apology necessary, we got your back, . Well, no, not That way....

 

[Oz]

Thanks, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

Yer welcome and no apologies ness (I've hardly been outspoken on the issue)........in fact it feels very weird having someone apologise on here.....I'm usually gettin' in bother somewhere or other on these forums

 

[BeardofPants]

No apology necessary, we got your back, . Well, no, not That way....

It's just been a great night for you, hasn't it? too bad I already gave you karma

Don't worry, , not all of us are bigoted against gays. We're just not as out-spoken as the right-wing nutjobs around here.

 

[chcr]

Chcr and Oz,

Once again in my haste to reply I generalized all the members of this forum into one group. I'm well aware that there are supporters of gay marriage that post here and I'm very greateful to each of you. As (as far as I'm aware anyway) the only openly gay person here, I make the mistake of thinking that I'm alone in trying to fight this fight. It's the Gay Superhero Extraordinaire in me. If it weren't for people like you guys I wouldn't have come back. Thanks, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

No need, , just pointing out that while the extremes on either side of an issue make the most noise, the majority has a somewhat better grip.

 

[A.B.Normal]

It's just been a great night for you, hasn't it? too bad I already gave you karma

Don't worry, , not all of us are bigoted against gays. We're just not as out-spoken as the right-wing nutjobs around here.

*what she said

 

[ResearchMonkey]

AB, BoP, in brief,

Thanx again for the thoughtful labels. I hope it improves your self-esteem.

simply stated: you know not of which of speak.

 

[kale]

AB, BoP, in brief,

Thanx again for the thoughtful labels. I hope it improves your self-esteem.

simply stated: you know not of which of speak.

Since my previous post didn't actualy post, I'll just edit this fake half post. Apparently lesbians aren't allowed to post here from their cell phones. The world's against me!

*ahem* Barring that stereotypical "everyone's out to get me" comment, I'll continue, more on topic.

Referencing your post about how "homosexuals don't see marriage as the same as do heterosexuals", I must call you out. Perhaps, if it's not obvious enough from my avatar, I am a lesbian.... Lesbian superhero, bar none! As the Flame's loyal cohort extraordinaire Butch, I must take exception to said comment about my (our) not seeing marriage as the same.

I, as well as 99.999% of homosexuals, was raised in a heterosexual family. Perhaps me moreso -- my family was military, as daddy AND mommy fought for our country and our rights to do bugger all. Raised in this environment, I was instilled with the same moral compass as was everyone else in America -- hets more than homos? -- and, well, I ended up gay regardless.

However, with that strong moral basis, marriage, to me, is a wonderful thing that happens when two loving people come together and decide to commit themselves to become a single unit. Love, loyalty, the future... that's all a part of marriage. As, in the traditional American way, is 2.3 children, a nice suburban house with a not-too-expensive mortgage, a good job on the part of the breadwinner (the wife staying home to care for the children), and (who could forget?) the family cat/dog.

Y'know what? As lesbian cohort extraordinaire, I want these things too.

I long to be able to declare my love, my loyalty, my future to a lovely woman who I feel I can commit my life to and have children with. I want to raise said children in a loving environment, in safe suburbia with the family pet, guiding said kids through elementary and middle and high school and waving a sad goodbye as said kids escape off to college to pursue their own lives.

Homosexuals can't do that?

Is there something in my obviously tainted genes that prevent me from doing so? Or perhaps it's nuture over nature. Did military mommy (who retired to raise me, as any good suburban mommy should) or my strong military daddy (who fought in the Honduran civil war, the Persian gulf war, and the current shindig in Iraq) raise me to be a big homo? In doing so, did they strip me of all my womanly right to have children, to raise them in a safe and loving environment, and all that fun stuff that heterosexuals hold dear?

If so, I missed that memo (of course, I'm gay).

Please respond.. I don't quite understand the beef is, especially if we're "corrupting the idea of marriage" -- I believe that hets do that well enough on their own... what's the rate of divorce again? Broken homes and deadbeat dads? I dare not say more, for risk of offending your precious heterosexual ideals.

 

[[b]]

AB, BoP, in brief,

Thanx again for the thoughtful labels. I hope it improves your self-esteem.

simply stated: you know not of which of speak.

Well, that was an easy out... nothing to say about what my response?

 

[kale]