I don't think the State should be in the marriage game in the first place – let churches marry who they want, but the government should not deny civil unions to whatever a) adult and b) couples who want to get married.

Marriage by definition includes a fundemental biological component. Two guys or two gals can't , er…hmmm, dammit they can't synthesize that, no matter what they say…

….watch the incrementalism in play here…how does "Lance" eat the elephant? Not in one bite…he takes smaller bites…

Nice strawmen you got there, Steve.

That was funny! Everything short of marriage, is cool with me.

I knew I was a self-loathing queer conservative the year I left a WeHo Shame Parade after witnessing a giant penis squirting fake (at least I hope it was) semen into the cheering crowd.

Haven't attended one since.

Civil Unions Yes, Marriage No.

Ding! Ding! Ding!…..we have a winner!

Individualist said-
"The Ancient Roman culture was no stranger to homosexual behavior however it never expressed as same sex unions. The Roman marriage was always a man and a women. The Romans would never think of sex with one gender only in the way we do today."

Actually same sex marriage was recognized in civil law in the Roman Empire until it (The Empire) was converted to Christianity in the 3rd century by the Emperor. This was neither the first, nor the last, time it was a recognized part of a society.

I am personally ambivalent towards gay marriage. If it happens, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. I am neither gay, Christian, nor do I have any intent to marry so I can't imagine an issue that would effect me less. Though I do have to admit it is sometimes funny watching people from both sides behave as if the fate of society hangs in the balance. But usually it's just annoying.

Allow it, don't allow it, just pick one already and let's all move on.

It seems to me that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution. This is one area where I think there should definitely be separation of church and state. Let the government get completely out of the marriage business and by out of the marriage business I mean stop assigning any legal aspects to marriage. Reserve those for civil unions which both hetero- and homosexual couples can enter into. Leave marriages to the church so that individual churches can define what they consider marriage and if couples want to enjoy the legal benefits that currently attach to marriage, they can get a civil union at the same time.

I remember when marriage became uncool. I had Liberal friends who would literally make fun of you if you wanted to get married. They'd talk about how unnatural it was to try to settle down with one partner, and it was just our bogus religious brainwashing that was convincing us to do it.

I wonder if that means I can call gay marriage advocates "brainwashed" now?

"hohohohoho,merry christmas! here's mah wang!!" omg. best. line. ever.

check me off for a civil union. no marriage. also check me off for santa keeping it in his pants.

If your source is a book by John Boswell Christianity, Tolerance and Society then I believe he would dispute part of what you are saying.

According to the chat room comments I read supposedly he states the church did not outlaw gay relationships until the 12th century. Honestly though it seems this book is written by someone with a axes to grind. supposedly he recognises that Cicero "considered" the relationship of a nephew with a man a marraige and states Nero married two men. I believe Nero did have a wife so on that statement I am confused,

The thing I find strange is back then the women in a marraige was quite literally property. They did not have feminism or suffrage. So how did you define who was whose property in a "gay" marraige. There was homosexuality in Rome that is sure but it seems not exclusively so. I don't know.

According to Crowder stats though it appears that if we decided to ahve civil unions for gay people and vote that is it would pass 57 to 38% I think. I am sure of the 57% sure not the second number but it was lower than 50%.

Perhaps if we used a different term. We could call them Bondings and refer to the participants as BondMates. This to my mind sound nicer than civil union or significant other which have too much of an academic quality.

The thing I find ironic is that Bush early in his first term came out for Civil Unions when the Massachutsetts court case occured. The Gay community rejected that. They should have taken what was offered then.

As to the propigation of the species it is no relavant the numbers of humans. The point is how does socieity ensure that children are raised. We do this through marraige. A child of a woman is considered to be her husbands even if it is not. Why because he is the one who is married to her and thus can claim sexual rights. This is why marraige developed to name a mother and father to a child. The numbers of people on the planet does not address my point when a gay man fathers a child. I know today with a 50% divorce rate it does not dawn on people but the children are what are supposed to come first. If a civil union and a marraige are the same thing then they are exclusive and the gay man to do the right thing must abandon his partner. I say they are different and he does not, can marry the woman and take care of the child with her.

But didn't Collyforniah pass Prop 8, and the libbies and gay folks had a hissy fit and continue to persecute anyone they feel that won't fight back? It doesn't matter what the vote is, the libbies won't accept it unless it fits their agenda.

I know!

Never thought I'd see that day when gays would be accessorizing themselves with kids and demanding marriage.

So bourgeois ; )

Why do idiots continually say "the government should not be in the business of marriage." WHY do you think the government has ALWAYS been involved in the business in every civilization? Maybe because entire legal systems of countries are dependent on a nuclear family?

For anyone who supports civil unions and not homosexual marriages, quit being dishonest and just admit what is the obvious.

I completely agree with you. Frankly, I think that is the best compromise we are ever going to come to. B/c honestly if civil unions have the same legal rights as marriages, and marriages are looked upon in a religious way then we should leave "marriages" to churches and other religious institutions and give everyone "civil unions".

Though I am 99% conservative, I really do not have a problem with gays wanting to have some kind of permanent relationship that is legally recognized, whatever they want to call it. Let's face it, most of the gays that will do it are the kind that are more monogamous and probably more otherwise "Traditional" than you think. Sure, there are some that just want to do it to thumb their noses, but most actually have loving relationships and want a family, etc.

The obvious is that persons of the same sex cannot marry. It is physically impossible to consummate the marriage and breed.

Er. Right?

No, no, no……the answer is you're a bigot.

I support giving gay couples a state recognized union where they can have the same rights heterosexuals have to designate next of kin, inheritors etc. I want such a union to not be able to be used to force private institutions to change their practices (ie Catholic groups forced to adopt to gay couples) but frankly if you want to see less gay parades get them married and allow the civilizing influence commence.

Republicans should introduce another Civil Union bill just to let the Democrats stick it to gays agains by voting it down.

"Merry Christmas, here's my wang!"

That's a keeper.

Call me homophobic if you want, but I will never accept gay marriage. It is not natural and should not be allowed to happen. And I do have several gay people in my family and as friends that I absolutely love. Both family members are in committed relationships and have been for years. Let them live together if they want, just don't insist on marriage. If that is homophobic, so be it. I can live with it.

Coming soon as a new ABC series. I can't wait!

Mainly because it has Al Bundy and virtually everything else looks even more lame.

Let's try this one more time. I'm trying to be clear, but you seem to not understand. First the civil code I'm speaking of is not a meme, but rather a historical fact. I got it from reading different histories of Rome. The History Channel is fine, as far as it goes, but if you really want to learn history; pick up a book. As to the word meme, to quote The Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

As to what I'm calling monosexual, by that I simply mean someone who is attracted to one sex. Both homo- and heterosexuals are monosexual because they're both only attracted to one sex. With heteros it's the opposite, with homo's it's the same, but still just one sex, whereas bisexuals are attracted to both. And I didn't say it was exclusive, just the opposite, I said both exist.

As to genetics, the point you're missing is that if indeed there is a "gay" gene, gays are not the only ones who have it. As I mentioned previously there are multiple cases of identical twins where one is gay and the other straight. They both have the hypothetical gay gene, but for whatever reason it did not express in the heterosexual twin. So say the gay twin never procreates, (which as I also mentioned is far from certain since there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers available) but the heterosexual twin does, then he will pass on the gay gene. Therefore gays will not die out, whether they breed or not. I used identical twins because there it's certain they would share the gene, but any sibling would share a great deal of DNA and would have a high probability of passing it on to their offspring.

As to your contention that the number of humans is irrelevant to the propagation of the species, I'm sorry, but that's blatantly absurd. All propagate means in this context is for a species to multiply, obviously the more numbers you have the more said species is going to multiply. You seem to think it has something to do with how well a species raises it's offspring, it doesn't. So long as offspring are produced, and survive long enough to produce their own offspring, then the species is propagating.

No matter how lousy they are as parents.

So unless it's your contention that people are going to stop breeding if gay marriage is passed, then it will have no effect on the propagation of the species.

Which is of course not enough to say whether it would be a positive or negative change for society to legalize it. Personally I don't think it will have a major effect either way.

In the really old days, when things got too restrictive people would move on out to the territories for their freedom.

You know, Canada and Mexico have a lot of land that's hardly used, if at all. Think they'd miss it?

Yes because obviously if states vote on the issue directly then there is no need for anyone to discuss or think about the issue and determine like what they think should be done in their states. When they say it is a states rights issue they mean that aliens from other planets will decide and phone in the results cause no one ever votes on anything for the states I mean dude you'd have to spend like a whole 3-4 extra minutes in the voting booth punching out chads and like how you gonna know who the heck is running for state senate or something like you'd have to read a newspaper or something. I mean like if they want us to vote at the local level they should at least run ads on the cartoon channel where people will see it……. Oh Wait…………………….

I find the following things about homosexuality interesting.

According to a Popular Science magazine article I read a gene has been identified in animals tied to sexuality. If they have this gene then they are as likely to express their sexuality as hetero as homosexual. Without this gene the animal always expresses heterosexuality.

The Ancient Roman culture was no stranger to homosexual behavior however it never expressed as same sex unions. The Roman marraige was always a man and a women. The Romans would never think of sex with one gender only in the way we do today.

It is possible that what we think of as "homosexual" is as much due to a cultural element within the Gay and Mainstream cultures today as it is realy an inner drive to only be attracted to one sex. If people had genes that made them homosexual how is it such genes would survive from generation to generation in the gene pool. Not sure.

The reason gays have such a raunchy out there parade is because for centuries they had to hide their sexuality or face persecution or, in some cases, even prison. So their outragious parade is a big F you to everyone who doesn't agree with their lifestyle and a message that it's never going back to the way it used to be.

It is my conceit that if Gay Marraige is enacted that you will eventually see Gay people removed from the gene pool. For this reason I am against it. Marraige is about children and gays cannot have children in homosexual only relationships. Many of them do not engage this way. I knew someone whose father was gay and was an acoholic. To assume a gay person with a life time partner cannot have a marraige to a woman he has fathered a child with by law is what you are saying when you equate civil unions with marraige. The puprose of marraige is to ensure each child knows their biological mother and father and allows for them to be raised by them. This is the important thing. I think the debate is couched in rhetoric and hyperbole that keeps anyone from even exploring these issues. To my mind these issues, issues of propagation of the species are the only ones that actually are important.

"'hohohoho, Merry Christmas! Here's mah wag!!' omg. best. line. ever."

Agreed.

There is no right to marriage. To say there is such a right places obligations on other people:
1) the person you wed, or at least propose to
2) the person who performs the ceremony

Following reference 1, if marriage was a right I could go up to any person and say "Marry Me." If they said no I could sue them for infringing on my right to marriage.
Following reference 2, we… Crowder pointed that one out. Good job.

Honestly. gay marriage' has never been about getting married. Why would people who are living in sin expect a church to condone their activity and wed them in the eyes of God?

No, this whole flap is all about (drumroll) government benefits. The government in its incredible wisdom decided to merge inheritance, visitation, and taxation benefits to marriage licenses. At the time I suppose it made sense, but we need to revise it. Turn them into Union licenses and force people to apply for them whether they were married, bound by commonlaw, justice of the peace, civil union, you name it.

Rather than respond in any responsible way, I would just like to comment on how small the man's shamrock is.

Truly, if you are going to cover Mr. Fella with fig leaf, make it a big one.

Steven, once again both funny and poignant.

The basic problem with legal marriage, or any doppelganger, for any combination other than one man and one woman is reproduction. The rational for marriage is children, not romantic love.

Pair-bonded couples with children (a family) predate civilization, and are the basis for society. Over time civilization built up around the family and formalized marriage in recognition of its essential function. All changes undermining marriage and the family have undermined society as a whole.

Most automatic benefits of marriage (excluding reproductive and custody issues) can be obtained by other than married couples by other legal instruments (i.e. wills and trusts, living wills, limited powers of attorney, etc.). Those who truly wish these legal protections may enter into them at any time, if that is what they really seek. However, if what they want is societal recognition of their lifestyle, perhaps they should seek counseling…

Great! Then I say next Easter Heteros celebrate their heterosexuality by dry humping eachother on floats down Haight Ashbury! Yay! How classy…

I'm sorry but you make Gays sound like immature babies getting back at mommy and daddy. Is that what you are trying to say?

I am offically insulted by Crowder….

Only we in the Philly area are allowed to Boo Santa. YOU STOLE THIS FROM US YOU RACIST JERK!!

In all seriousness I thought a lot about this about 10 years ago trying to determine how I should think as an American, a Conservative and a Christian. The passage about "love the sinner, hate the sin" kept coming to mind and led me to be comfortable to say that I do not hate people expressing a homosexual lifestyle but I do not support their lifestyle as it is sinful. That being said I must keep it in reference with any other sin such as promiscuity or infidelity.

This is what I've been saying all along. Any two people can get a civil union (for straight couples, this was formerly known as a marriage license). Some city official performs the ceremony, and the couple has now formed one financial entity. If they then want a religious ceremony, they can knock themselves out. The government's role is done, they can find any church that'll marry them. Then they have their religious ceremony, and everyone is happy.

Also check out what Camille Paglia says.

I believe in freedom and that two men or women will have legal and societal relationships with each other, but that it goes too far to break down marriage because the male and female relationship is what it always has been and let's keep it that way.

The government attaches that label, and when the government attaches that label, it risks defining that institution. Since marriage is primarily seen as religious, the various religions should be free to define what a marriage is to them. The government only gets to decide what legalities are attached to those unions. Government puts its foot in its mouth when it calls civil union "marriage."

It should be this way: every couple who wants to get married finds a religion to marry them. Every couple who wants the government legalities extended to couples gets a civil union. Yes, that means all married couples would have to get both a marriage and a civil union, but it preserves the freedom of religion and allows couples equal rights under law.

None of those guys have had to hide anything for centuries.

Not being an expert on Roman Civil Code, I would think that any such provisions would be attached primarily to male couples given the lesser freedoms that women had. And I wonder how many of these provisions of civil code came into being because of an Emperor rather than because of the people's decisions via the Senate or similar body.

An Emperor has the power of decree. So did the provisions in the code pre-date the Empire (ROman Republic) or were they created during the Imperial Age.

The coin flips both ways. Just as there very religious folks who will oppose any recognition of couple status for couple status., there are also homosexuals who will accept nothing less than full recognition by every body empowered to recognize such unions.

Gay marriage means it will be taught in school in the name of diversity. No way around it. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this position, it is another egregious example of how public schools are used to indoctrinate the youth in the liberal agenda. Johnny can't read and will more than likely drop out so can we spend a little more time on the three Rs and drops the diversity, eco, etc. time suck bs that teachers love? Maybe if the teacher's colleges didn't instill such a dream of the joys of indoctrination in new teachers over the goal of imparting knowledge, the nation wouldn't be talking about merit pay for teachers so much?

Yes because behavior like that always convinces people who may think of homosexuality as a perversion that they should tolerate or even accept to some small degree the gay community … If I follow this logic, African-Americans should celebrete their heritage by behaving like the inferior beings that racial hate groups like the KKK would have us believe they are.

Do you even begin to see why throwing public spectacles celebrating the worst stereotypes society has for homosexuals might not be helping their agenda? If all homosexuals acted like the ones at Gay Pride parades, people would have far less tolerance for them because don't want to see other people engaged publically in that kind of behavior, gay or straight.

"Plus, it’s not everyday that I get to put on a Leprechaun costume"

It's not everyday… just Tuesday nights and weekends after 4pm.

This has always been my argument too. As a Catholic, we regard marriage as a sacrament, so really the state can't "marry" anyone. I'd love for the state to be restricted to civil unions to avoid the confusion.

I have ZERO issues with civil unions between consenting adults. That's legal and not anything I should be afraid of or against. If the participants want to make a big cerimony out of it, fine. Marriage buy definition should not be altered to serve a sliver of our nation's population. It's a ~biological~ thing, you may not understand.

I'll check it out…so, they still NEED men to, er..reproduce? I'm shocked!

Damn how that science gets in the way…

I agree with Richard; amazing how quickly gays were so eager to latch onto the squareness that is marriage…total asshats.

And a racist. And hate-filled. And against decent honest people trying to get ahead. And get health care. And brainwashed by (organized) religion. And against Obama just because he's black. And want to see Biffy the polar bear die when all the ice melts.

In short, admit we're conservatives, at least that we're Republicans. So, see you at the Klan meeting, where this week we'll be discussing if we need different nooses for blacks and gays. Don't forget your Bible!

Conservatives used to think that whatever was done behind a closed door was the business of the people doing it, insofar as no one got hurt…now conservative has come to mean 'Christian' and has become infused with Christian dogma, so that even these protectors of individual liberty and privacy are now banging the drum against personal freedom. Outside of a religious reason against same-sex marriage, what else really is there? How can it 'hurt' the institution of marriage when heterosexuals have already destroyed it with quickie Vegas weddings performed by an Elvis impersonator, which are then quickly followed by a trip to divorce court? There would seem to be no need for any complaint, and yet, here we are, banging the broken drum of 'values' and 'tradition', in a country where 50 percent of all so-called 'sacred' marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rates for so-called born-again Christians are higher than the national average.

.

That in my opinion is the better solution to this problem. If it is a right for gays to marry in the traditional religous sense when the religion itself does not recognize it then they are open to lawsuits just like the Boy Scouts of America got.

"Duff sperm"? That's a hoot. I saw "Duff" beer for sale in Rome…hmmm, conection?

Dan, it's that simple and you still go out there and state the FACTS clearly and concisely, you must be a real Philistine (not to be confused with a Phillies fan)…

(Part 2 of my response….was asked to split it up)

On the topic of insurance coverage, I called his insurance company to see if I could be covered under his plan, as it is far more affordable, the answer was negative. 'We have to be married'. The person on the other line claimed that Gays can have their significant partners covered, but heterosexuals can't. I only citied my own example, even though i have the option of marriage, i chose not to, I think Gays couples should have the same right. Same rule should apply to all. Same rule for transsexuals, although limited (in my view, so far) to those born with both organs (male/female) and not to people who have had elective surgery (shemale / hemale).

I hope what I'm trying to say is clear, I've been up since 2 AM and am falling asleep.

Shouldn't that apply to heterosexuals too. Why only for Gay couples? As citizens, legal residents, tax payers everyone should have the same right, so that no one feels discriminated against.

At somepoint in life, women were not allowed to vote, same for African Americans, but times have changed and I think people need to change as well.

If I were gay, I would want that option. And yes, the right of decision should be there, without penalty.

Can't we all just get along…with leather-thong-clad men in the act of humping each other while riding on top of a parade float down main street America?

I'm absolutely for same sex couples being allowed to enter into partnerships. I've just had my fill with the constant redefining of terms that have been established over centuries to become something new because of a vocal minority. Marriage isn't a right, it's a covenant between a man and a woman. Civil unions can be made to have the same benefits as marriage far more easily and less contentiously than redefining a known standard. I've yet to have someone explain to me clearly why that's not a workable solution, other than a "separate but equal isn't good enough" type argument. That route always ends up derailed when I ask "why not," considering separate but inequal legislation like hate crimes laws are just fine when they're on the side that benefits. Generally a lot of sputtering, mumbling, and swearing from then on, followed by (just as Steven astutely observed)…."You're a homophobe."

I would love to be able to just get along, but I've got Christians in one ear screaming about sin and hellfire, and gays in the other ear screaming about matching patterns in the foyer. It's like oil and water and we're all in search of the Ultimate Emulsifier.

yeah, but gay people can always raise the millions of children that heteros abandon and throw away.

Your existence is an aberration, try living in the real world you ignorant twat.

You obviously hit a truth there to get so many downvotes. Also Steve spare us your pasty thighs in the future.

one word ……….. NAMBLA

Did you ever think about the fact that maybe because none of the "gay activists" you knew supported the idea of gay marriage, is because at the time the whole concept of gay marriage was–even for us gays–too far in the distance to wish for. We've come a long way baby, fighting the good fight, and yeah now that it looks like the possibility of some of us being able to get hitched in our lifetime might actually happen, so now we're actually thinking of the possibility of "what if". Don't degrade all of us, just because some of the bitter queens you've known in the past are jumping on ship.

The true picture can be much worse. Back during the first Bush term when I was arguing this online, I found lots of statements from original proponents of gay marriage, outright declarations that it was all about destroying that outmoded religious institution, etc. The online references were hard to come by, lots of dead links at the news outlets, but many had been collected at "intolerant" Christian sites. They'd take civil unions as the thin end of the wedge, but it goes from gay marriage to abolishing monogamy (equal treatment of bisexuals, etc) and whatever else to make marriage discredited, irrelevant, then discarded.

Now the movement for gay marriage has since become dominated (in numbers at least) by well-meaning people who really believe it's an equal treatment issue, if not necessarily equal rights. So allowing civil unions only of any sexual pairing shouldn't be too bad, right?

I completely agree with you on that, but unfortunately, those on the other side refuse to take the vote as the law. They didn't like the outcome, so they sue and keep sueing until somebody finally gives them what they want. Not one state has voted in favor of homosexual marriage, and yet, it's now legal in several states because the legislative body decided to go against the will of the people and declare it law to suit the ones who make the loudest fuss.

I don't know what world you live in. Homosexuals used to get arrested, get fired etc. because they were homosexuals.

"movement for gay marriage has since become dominated (in numbers at least) by well-meaning people who really believe it's an equal treatment issue"

I might say well-intended people who have been manipulated into not thinking about what they are talking about, to the point they offer such vacous inanities as " allowing civil unions only of any sexual pairing shouldn't be too bad, right?

Do you really hold the opinion that two brothers should be civilly unioned if they desire it?

And none of this addresses the point that legitimizing "civil unions" gives the state the power to tell Catholic charities it must allow gays to adopt children, or presbyterians that they must allow lesbians parties on their premises.

I'm not against gay marriage at all, but rather would like to see everyone doing what makes them happy, as long as there are no NAMBLA factions or any other perverse things like bestiality. If my gay brother-in-law wants to get married to someone he loves, so be it. No one can tell you who to love, so why should they be able to tell you who you can marry? The laws in place already don't deny gay marriage; if they did there would be no clamor from the Christians about creating a law to ban it. It seems to come down to whether or not the people in charge of city hall in whatever town or city that you live in are willing to uphold the law or establish some sort of prevarication based on personal beliefs to avoid upholding it.

In every single country where homosexual marriage has been legal for longer than a few years, the marriage rate (for couples of all genders) have dropped dramatically while the birthrates for unwed mothers has shot way up.

Multiple studies have shown that children who grow up without a loving father in the home are more likely to do worse in school, to drop out of high school, to end up in jail, to live below the poverty line, to be exposed to early sexualization, to become teen parents, to have depression and self-esteem issues, have an eating disorder, commit suicide, and to turn to substance abuse.

Cont'd

The gays are vicious. They just fired a soap actress (Patricia Mauceri of "One Life To Life") because, as a devout Christian, she refused to have her character (who also is a devout Christian) sanction the gay lifestyle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546720,00.htm...

I'd eagerly support a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" status for any two unmarried individuals who are unable to marry each other — but which is stone-cold silent as to whether or not the pair are having sexual relations of whatever kind. I'm staunchly opposed to "gay marriage" or only gay civil unions or gay domestic partnerships. The government — national, state, county, local — has no business taking any individual's self-definition as "gay" and forcibly demanding, with guns drawn and government-approved punishments imminent, that everybody else acknowledge that "gay identity" and treat that in a particularly esteemed manner. What you may or may not be doing in private is your business; what you demand of me in public, if contrary to my religious liberty to believe homosexuality is a wrong choice to enact, I will oppose strenuously.

Second why are you posting two paragraphs to convince me of something I stated in my original statement. I said that the science magazines article stated that their was gene identified in animals that was required in order for that animal to express homosexual behavior. I also stated their studies stated that those with the gene were as likely to be straight as gay. Given that the Romans did not conceive of monosexuality in people and this fact I hypothesized that there might be a problem with the current way popular culture views homosexuality. I am allowed to do this even if it does not meet with your political approval just as Copernicus was allowed to think the Sun was the center of the Solar system. Even if I am wrong!

Look. If they want to flip the collective and figurative bird to society, that's what freedoms are for, but then they have no right to come back making demands of that same society. My kid can demand that I buy him candy all he wants and make himself into a royal brat in the process, but I'm not then going to feel sorry for him when he feels it unfair that he didn't get everything he wants.

In short, freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

And I don't think Crowder hates gays anymore than anyone else posting here, and I know most of us don't hate gays. We can separate their sexual behavior from the rest of who they are we don't have to like that aspect of their lives, but it is just one aspect. I'm not friends with my friends because of their sexuality or private lives. Generally, that doesn't come into a friendship beyond the usual grousing about SOs, and I can tolerate that because SOs are SOs no matter what sex they are.

Why should you then be so special as to get special legal benefits that married couples and common law couples would be without? He's saying that all benefits should be abolished for everyone if government isn't willing to give up the marriage label. And you would have choice – you can go join a religious group that will marry same-sex couples if you really want that; they do exist.

Either have the government give civil unions for all, or nothing for anyone. Either way, we would then be equal under the law.

What part of "apply for them whether they were married, bound by commonlaw, justice of the peace, civil union, you name it" did you not understand?

If you want me to spell it out, YES I meant that everyone regardless of their sexual orientation and gender of partner would have to get the license. Maybe it should be called "Partnership License" or "Couple Benefits License" or some silly crap like that.

Hmmm, you are free to marry at the moment; everyone is. And many places allow you to be equal under the law with a civil union. Beyond that, if you want to marry, join a religious group that recognizes same sex couples in marriage and will marry you. I'll even revoke the legal benefits I get from the government that I got upon my marriage, and then go back and apply for a civil union to reclaim them.

I'm fine with gay civil unions, but I do not think we should re-define the word marriage. And I"m not sure why you think the Fed. Gov. must acknowledge it to keep you from being second class. You do realize that the people formed the states, and the states formed the Fed. Gov. Technically/Constitutionally, the federal government should be on the bottom of the pecking order, and any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the COTUS is reserved for the separate states and the people. I don't see anything about marriage in the COTUS, but I do see freedom of religion. If the federal government redefines the institution of marriage, it will be infringing on the freedom of religion that many of the first citizens of this nation came here for.

Jodie, would you please explain why a church marriage is more "desirable" than a civil union? Wasn't this whole debate about equality from a legal standpoint? Please explain why all of a sudden marriage is now the holy grail when we all know that church doctrine will not allow it. I don't think that part is ambiguous.

Also, will the gay community be targetting Muslim marriage as well?

[...]  I found an article by a male feminist.  These creatures bother me more than anything else. Gay Marriage and Homophobes! – bighollywood.breitbart.com 09/04/2009 A lot of Republicans may feel that we’d be [...]

That's a good point. You NEVER hear gay marriage activists complain about the lack of pro-gay mosques in America.

I think this because of either:

a. It's un-PC to criticize Muslims for any reason (That's "Islamophobic," by the way.)

b. Fear of getting a beat down for protesting in front of a mosque. (Hardcore Muslims like the Nation of Islam aren't the type to turn the other cheek.)

c. Both

Talk about gay activist hypocrisy.

If you use the "marriage as a sacrament" argument, then in that case, why to the very same Catholics get divorced in civil courts. Yes, a few who want to get remarried in church, seek an annulment after numerous years of marriage and children. What becomes of these children? There are countries, like India, were 'Christians' are a minority, and Catholics make up an even smaller minority of the 'Christians'. In the event the church grants an annulment, the children are probably not recognized as legitimate by the state. Inheritance laws in India do not include illegitimate children. There is often a stigma attached to divorced women in certain cultures.

If there's such a pent-up demand for marriage in the gay community, then don't we see reflected nationwide. For example, those betting on gay marriage money flowing into Vermont have gotten a reality check:

Bed-and-breakfast owner Jeff Connor was hoping for a boom in business once Vermont opened the door for same-sex couples to marry.

Unlike the rush that followed Vermont's adoption of civil unions in 2000, the state's adoption of full marriage rights for same-sex couples hasn't turned it into a gay marriage mecca. And it may not.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM...

This doesn't shock me because I talked with a gay guy who thought getting marriage was a waste of time. This has been confirmed by magazines like WORLD, which also notes that their were gay people who vote FOR marriage amendments like Prop. 8:

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14623

So, if most gay people don't talk gay marriage seriously, why should the rest of us?

Dude, learn to be a "bottom" rumpranger…

ok, a-s-c you a-s-s

Heh, funny.

Whoops, that was "literate," not "liberate"

Interesting how gay "marriage" activists support "separation of church and state" so long as the church approves of their lifestyle.

Gay liberal hypocrisy wins out again.

A child getting back at his mommy and daddy isn't quite the same as Gays standing up for themselves and saying They aren't going to hide anymore.

Thought??? 50 years ago, lynching was an acceptable thought for some. Tomorrow a majority of the nation may decide and vote that they do not like people with dark hair, or short people, Should that be acceptable? It should be a decision made at the Federal Level and not state levels, as homophobes like Trent Lott have called it a sin and bribery is a virtue! Amen. Dick Cheny only support gay marriage because his daughter is gay.

What does Obama have to do with it. Was Bush any better? 8 years, sure blame the economy on Obama, all his fault since he took over in November.

Marriage is a spiritual (read religious) union, not a legal one, and is not the jurisdiction of the government. The governments CHOOSE to recognize these marriages in accordance with the will of the people. As such it is not for the government to decide who can or cannot get married but rather which unions it will recognize and which "rights" (read benefits/allowances) each union will be afforded, again according to the will of the people.

As it is the government has not so much as held a referendum on the matter, but the polls seem to indicate that the majority of voters in the u.s. are open to the idea of civil partnerships that afford same sex couples similar rights. What the majority is not open to is calling these same sex unions by the same name as they are not spiritually or morally equivalent.

If it were simply a matter of "rights" the matter would likely have been resolved by now, however, there are those in the LGBT community/ranks that insist on having these unions declared morally and spiritually equivalent. What's more is they would have the government force religious leaders to perform these marriages despite it going against their faith.

Their actions are, in my eyes, acts of utter defiance and contempt for God. Just as one poster indicated this kind of behavior has been socially unacceptable for ages and now when they are given the opportunity to show how they are so much like us and WHY they should be accepted, they dance around in the streets showing their ass, and more like a bunch of hellspawn. Ultimately what they are doing is giving God the finger.

continued…..

As a woman, nobody, but I have the right to decide over what happens to my body or a part of my body. I n some of the cases in Ireland in the 30 and 40's, young teenage girls, some mentally handicapped, were raped by either a family member of member of the church, then these women were put in a home, and when the child was born they were sent to the U.S. to be adopted, probably by Joel Steinberg. This is not just the Catholic church, it is all over. Solldiers raping women in Serbia tried for war crimes, but not our soldiers.

I think as resident, tax payers of this country, we should all have the same rights, regardless of color, creed, religion, sexual preference. Healthcare as well, I don't want some rich man or woman by passing me or anyone else when waiting for a kidney.

I read somewhere that Hitler was a homosexual, but was in denial, sad, if he has come out, maybe millions of lives would have been saved. A fair number of straight men have had gay sex at some point in their life, boarding schools, Altar boy, army, poor boys in third world countries.

How much of this change in attitude by gays toward marriage has to do with their radicalization by the left's agenda to destroy our country's traditions and institutions?

Josh,
Why do men get to have 4 wives, why not women. That is a very old law, for a time when men in the Arab countries were nomads, they traveled to earn a living/sell goods, a wife in each direction was accepted so they wouldn't resort to going to prostitues or bestiality. I would like the option of having 4 husbands, one in each direction. I'm sure you know that in the country that you live, men have sex, because women are not easily available, and when they are most of them are dirt poor, and have families to support in Chechnya, Tajikstan etc. And the moral police is a big joke, men in jeeps, judging people and them committing the same crime. I'm sure you've seen this before, but the creep in this video is one of the Sheikhs of UAE and his brothers occupy all the other posts. You have to watch it via the link below, for some reason I can't find it anymore, there is another one, apparently he likes to tape is torture and view them later.

http://www.bloggingbeirut.com/archives/1461-UAE-T...

Biscuits, What you're saying is clear to me.

The parameters of this entire debate have defined by leftists, and people here begin from a place they are told to start from.

Marriage is not in fact only religious in nature. Marriage is the building block of civil society, and governments have had an interest in codifying it as the normative relationship in all cutlures going back to stone age societies.

Using the weak libertarianism fundamental underlying the core of many conservatives, and saying OK to civil unions reflexively is disapointing to me and shows a lack of thought. I would posit to those people this simple question: Should two brothers who desire it be allowed to join in civil union?

To actually address your original post….

Some years back I was reading about "homosexual" behavior in Europe, it was mentioned there is a notable "substitution factor," men want women but they'll take another man if that's what's available. In America we see the same in prisons, guys who are straight on the outside but "go Greek" on the inside, which also may explain the roots of that term.

Nowadays being gay is promoted as being independent, a rebel, different (and better) than the sheep. If you even try to experiment, you get told there is no such thing, you must be gay. How did they put it on Brothers and Sisters, there are no 50 year old bisexuals, might have been 60. And if you go out, might as well go all the way out, thus the exaggerated behavior to proudly display the "gayness."

If there really is a gay gene, it might be recessive, thus it could pass on for generations before finding a match. The low percentages could support that, and it seems far more likely than it being a dominant gene and the majority with it are somehow repressed homosexuals. While I doubt they will ever find a true one that leads to exclusive homosexuality, I wouldn't mind it if they did. Then we could screen for it, and have fun watching the pro-abortion crowd choke on the threat to selectively abort based on it. Heck, we have gene therapy, someday we could cure it!

No, not two brothers, or sisters, etc. That wasn't worded too good.

I'm not that fond of civil unions, it's throwing meat to the wolves in the hope they'll stay away. They'll be back, count on it. And I laid out what the original plans were when the movement was initiated, smoke screen that it was. You should have noticed that was not a "vacuous inanity" but a comment on how far the debate has gone, so many have bought the "equal treatment" line while being good people thinking about all those other well-meaning supporters without knowing or accepting as relevant the radical origins.

Sad part is, we pretty much have to allow civil unions. It's the minimum that can be yielded and will satisfy those well-meaning folks who accept there must be some form of recognition of same-sex unions, period. After that, defending "marriage" is easier, they've been given the legal benefits as a "separate but equal" product.

And now that I've typed "separate but equal" I can see where the next stage of the debate may head. *Sigh*

As to the rest, that falls under "offering services to the public." The banquet facility was apparently so offering, they might beg off due to doubts about ability to pay but otherwise they don't have the footing to refuse certain individuals. The Salvation Army is technically a church, with an anti-homosexuality stance, but they don't get to turn gays away.

The Catholic Charities case, from the land of the Kennedy's and Barney Frank, has other issues, read here. Their own board had voted unanimously to keep doing the adoptions, as in they were quietly already authorizing them, for 20 years previous. It was the bishops who wanted it stopped, it was the bishops who were ruled against, and due to the bishops they stopped offering adoptions. Now I agree if these agencies are run on a private "members only" basis as part of the church then the state should butt out, no question. But for that particular case, the charity wasn't being forced to do anything they weren't willing to anyway.

A gay person's genes are unique. IF they do not mate, none of their genes pass on to the next generation. It does not matter if it is one gay person or several million. If a set of genes do not mate over time that gene pool will diminish in the population and be at risk for ending. Period! I favor a system that would allow a gay person a civil union and a maraige because one deals with love the other with being a parent to your children. No one is forced into it. If you can't see the point of it then I guess I cannot make myself clear.

Since a same sex civil union has a different make up than a marraige I think the distinction would allow courts the ability to acknowledge these differences where required. Especially when it comes to parental rights among other things. Again I think this way becaue I know someone whose father was gay and became an alcoholic due to the situation and it hurt her. I blame the "Gay culture as much as I blame the Mainstream culture for the circumstances that lead to this. If you think different fine, your choice but you are the one trying to correct me not the other way around.

I can't believe you guys gave me a -1 for politely and respectfully posting my opinion.

Is this why they have open sex in bars too?

Yeah I'm so narcissistic for standing up for an oppressed minority to have rights. Love isn't the only criteria I'm taking into account, but it's a big part of it, as it is for heterosexuals. I see though that love is all that's needed for heteros to get married, but if a gay couple wants to get married there has to be an alternative motive, nice attempt at a straw man.

What's pathetic is you using the "collective wisdom" of past generations and man-made traditions to justify your ignorance and bigotry. Hasn't history shown that "traditions" are made to be broken (the overruling of Jim Crow laws, Roe v. Wade decision), looking back social conservatives are always wrong about this moral panic bullshit. It's mind-boggling that you think "because that's the way we've always done it" is a logical, rational basis for ANYTHING, much less denying people civil rights.

I’ll throw that question back to you, who the hell are you to say who's love society can or can't sanction.

Hey Sarah Nicole if your gonna post bullshit, at least back it up with some sources…

Yeah because One News Now is a totally neutral source when it comes to teh gheys.

You might as well of posted a link to the Westboro Baptist Church

You know what's silly you gay (confused) conservatives, is that your supporting a party that’s been ridiculous in their efforts to marginalize humanity. the moral majority likes to talk about the govt turning into Big Brother and restricting our freedoms, then they turn around and try to push through legislation that dictates how people live their lives. fucking pathetic.

That's exactly true. That is why the parades originated and became R rated. It was a way to say "We're Here, We're Queer" You had to have a lot of guts to say that not too long ago.

The parades as they are now have outlived their original purpose. We need to really go from R (and X) rated to PG or at least PG13 if we want to be seen as credible.

Every year the right pulls out these photos, and every year the paraders just do it again.

The bottom line is that consenting adults should be able to enter into any kind of legal arrangement they wish to enter into…they just don't have to call it "marriage".

We would be much better off if every "marriage" was really a "civil union" with terms and conditions spelled out, signed and notarized.

People get into so much trouble with marriage because they don't have the same ideas about it. Does it mean being monogamous? Does it mean sharing finances equally? Does it mean if one party loses their looks they still stay together?

Since half of marriages end in divorce, apparently people don't know what they are doing when they get married in the first place.

There, I just fixed that for you, and hit the other one as well. I knew we were having a respectful discussion and didn't vote before.

Here is a thought experiment. Let us assume the article works as described. In our hypothetical human population half have the gene. Of the ones with the gene let's suppose half will be gay and half not. Thus we have 50% always Straight (AS), 25% Gene Straight (GS) and 25% Gay. In the next generation 50% will come from the AS and 25% from the GS, the Gay being so Gay they never procreate. The next generation is 66% AS and 33% have the Gene (GS+GAY) or GENE. Given this procreation scheme and a combined population of 6 billion, the members with the gene are less than 100,000 members in 16 generations or 320 years at 20 years a generation. In 32 generation (640 years) there will be one.

Science is now intervening, with surrogate mothers the genes of male homosexuals are getting passed on and sperm donors are allowing lesbians to have their own natural children. Look for those services to be covered in the liberal health care reform. There is also research to get a kid starting with two eggs, and replacing the genetic material in an egg with that from a sperm, so soon homosexual couples can have kids that are biologically from both parents. So any argument about a gay-only gene self-extincting is getting to be moot.

We carry lots of genes that don't seem to make sense and can even be harmful, until something comes along and those with them have better survivability from that particular thing. Like how sickle-cell anemia offers protection from malaria. I cannot see how a gay-only gene would ever be of benefit, if there was something where it made sense to avoid the opposite sex then the species is doomed anyway. An either-or gene could be useful to reduce sexual tension with a severely unbalanced population ratio between the sexes, if we ignore the STD problems and that the lower-numbered side could simply take on many opposite-sex partners. We have good science these days, like with malaria we don't have to settle for whoever survives due to a particular gene, we can find other solutions, better ones. The either-or and gay-only genes, if ever found in humans, are not needed, if people don't want them in their kids (by non-abortion methods) and even want to remove them from their own DNA, fine. Let's throw out the sickle-cell anemia gene too while we're at it.

But as far as eugenics is concerned, the distinction must be noted between throwing out genes that are harmful to the species in general, and selecting and promoting ones that someone thinks are extra-special beneficial. I wouldn't even support selecting for intelligence, too many high-IQ people with little to no commonsense and practical skills, and not enough patience for the drudge work needed for species and even individual survival.

"What I find amusing is that just a few short years ago, these self-proclaimed "gay activists" heaped scorn and derision on the whole concept and institution of marriage. Now all of a sudden, they just HAVE TO be able to get married"

I wondered this same thing. And it's not just the gay people. Straight people also have been screaming for a generation that "marriage is just a peace of paper". But now they too join with the homosexuals about this issue. The whole thing is so strange to me.

That's exactly true. That is why the parades originated and became R (or X) rated. It was a way to say "We're Here, We're Queer" You had to have a lot of guts to say that not too long ago.

The parades as they are now have outlived their original purpose. We need to really go from R (and X) rated to PG or at least PG13 if we want to be seen as credible.

Every year the people against gay rights pull out these photos, and every year the paraders just do it again.

The history channel was not stating that the Romans did not believe in Sex with a person of the same gender, far from it they actually promoted it. What they stated was that a Roman would not idenitfy himself as straight or gay because it would never occur to him or her that one would self proscribe sex with another of the same or opposite sex. This was a concept foreign to their culture. They based this on writngs and newly emerged architectual finds in Pompeii where the Volcano preserved painting etc.

My point is that our society does indeed promote this idea which means that an individual in Rome with this proclivity would be more likely to have a wife and children along with Gay lovers while in our society that individual would end genetically speaking with only Gay lovers. Whether its true or not I don;t know. I am hypothesizing. But it makes sense to me.

Again, with the "love" – it's not sanctioning love! Society CAN sanction whatever it wants. But, you don't want that because "society" is against gay marriage. You want people who think like you to decide for the rest of us – you want Roe v. Wade judges to decide abortion issues for the rest of us. You are for the "enlightened minority" to decide for the rest of us – i.e., your use of the word "overruling". Who am I to decide? I'm a person with one vote. But, you can't handle that – you need 'overruling'. And you're line that "traditions" are made to be broken is utterly self-serving – only the traditions YOU wish to be broken. And, your "traditions" are hardly of the same kind or magnitude as "marriage" (or nearly as uniform across societies/history). Abortion? I don't think "history" was "made" to be broken when it comes to killing a healthy prospective human being – another debate.

And . . . see next

Amazing how one is able to make a case for gay marriage without knowing it. Gay marriage doesn't ruin marriage. Adultery does. Why not make divorce illegal, if the whole point is to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage ?

there you go – another of the tolerant homosexual agenda sycophants

No. I was being sincere. It "feels" like an attack on Christianity because Christian churches are the only ones being targeted. I am sorry if you can't understand that.

Only liberals fail to accept election results that don't fit their agenda? Interesting notion, but politically naive.

You must be logged in to post a comment.