Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[Smokey]

My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.

I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole

[shokhead]

The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.

[Smokey]

I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs.

So you are saying that school changed their policy because somebody is gay?

If that is the case, it is definitely a discrimination

[shokhead]

Because they have more people to use insurance and its costing the district more,others have been changed to crap company's to save money. I've even heard that i might start paying for mine now. I dont get a vote or am asked about it,just a letter that says,you've been changed and a new medical card will be mailed,end of story.

[Pat D]

The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.

Do you have any evidence that this is related to benefits due to homosexual partners? Just how much of an extra expense to the plan do you think this would be? Wouldn't they have to pay extra for family coverage, just as do heterosexual couples? Shouldn't that cover the quite minor extra expense?

[shokhead]

Beats me. I just know after the district said they would cover gay partners, mine changed. Maybe it had nothing to do with it but it all happened at the same time. Its not any different then the district wanting the non-teaching jobs at schools{not at the board building} to pay more into the general retirement fund then others. Suit and ties get 100% of there salary as retirement and i get around 70-75%. Ya see,suit and ties want to work less years and get more retirement but not pay and what better way then to have all the non-teaching jobs pay more and collect less. So they can work 20 years,be 50 and get 100% of there already inflated salary and i get to work until i'm 65,have 40 years in and get 70-75%. Somebody gets a good deal and theres nothing to stop them,i'm not union.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.

IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.

Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.

I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.

There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole

Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

[shokhead]

Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.




Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.



If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.



Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused. Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way. Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

[Resident Loser]

...HT with all male or female parts"

Good one!

jimHJJ(...LMAO...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused.

You are assuming that kids are not so bright. There are several gay couples with children in my neighborhood. From what I understand, the parents explain to their children that couples come in many forms now days. Some kids have two mothers, some two fathers, and some a mother and a father. Kids understand this quite well as evidenced by the gay couples children.

Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way.

When it is not fair and equal, everyone suffers. The blacks and hispanic are not treated equally in this country, and have suffered greatly for it, generations in the case of blacks. Is this right? No it is not, not in a country that states in its constitution that all men(meaning mankind) are created equal. If you do not support this by treating everyone equally, then the constitution is nothing more than a history document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning white men around a table.

Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

Men and women are not HT components, so your analogy is a little off the mark. Men and women may have the right "connections" but they are piss poor at keeping the "components" connected together. I have said this before, I don't think gay couples give a rat's butt about the word marriage. I think they care about the equal rights more. If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

This country will never live up to its potential until it let's loose the notion that its people MUST discriminate, or things just won't be right.

[Pat D]

If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

You are quite right. And separate but equal simply will not work. Too many rights depend on marriage to be covered by civil unions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

[Beckman]

What the heck does it matter if the government calls a Gay union a marriage or a union. It doesn't matter. Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway. The term marriage has no meaning anymore!

[Smokey]

If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women.

What about the rights of children?

We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment. You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.
As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also

[Resident Loser]

...Sexual preference is not a "right" IMO...

If I as a male choose to live with two or three consenting women(harem?polygamy?), does that mean it should be recognized as a legitimate arrangement in some manner? Is my employer required to provide health benefits to my extended "family"? Should one of them be allowed to "pull the plug" if it comes down to that? Without any specific stipulation in a will, an estate will be divided among a "spouse" AND blood relatives i.e. parents...

Any homosexual relationship is just that...it requires no legal validation...why should it? Most likely both are employed and can fend for themselves...should they be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why should sexual proclivity be guaranteed anything whatsoever?

Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

You make a conscious choice to do what you do...you are aware of the benefits and pitfalls...

As far as the nuclear family is concerned...why are there less and less single breadwinner-type households? Because everyone wants everything right now! There is little or no self-restraint(fiscally or sexually)...everybody wants a cell-phone...or a second or third car(preferably a gas-guzzling behemoth of an SUV)...their idea of a home-cooked meal is a bag full of Colonel MacWendybelles...and it all costs $$$...so mom needs a job and the kids are over-indulged and consequently learn little about responsibility...and the purveyors of all things coveted, raise their prices due to market demand...and the wheel goes 'round and 'round and 'round...get my drift?

And finally, anyone who wishes to apply a 21st century mindset to the language of an 18th century document should do a little reading from a historical perespective..."men" for the most part were those who were land-owning adults...they had the right to vote, the right to govern, slaves were property and inventoried as such...and if there is a problem with slavery in general, I'd suggest we start with the neighboring tribes and villages who took captives, as slaves...sold or traded them to other tribes and eventually to the Portuguese who imported them into the New World, who in part established the "triangle trade" and the Spanish(who also subjugated the natives in like style) and the French and the English and three hundred or so years of precedent in the western hemisphere...not to mention the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans...or perhaps more recently those who took slaves in eastern Europe and gave us the word "Slavic"...a long, proud history of humanity as a whole, not just a "bunch of slave owning white men around a table" as some would have us believe...

jimHJJ(...and people give Bill Cosby hell...)

[JeffKnob]

A big problem is that too many people are too ignorant to realize that being gay is not a choice. It is who they are. Gay people fall in love with who they are attracted to. How would a straight person feel if they were told they were supposed to be with someone of the same sex. We would be turned off because that is not who we are attracted to. As far as children growing up in same sex households, the children has just as much of chance of being gay as they do straight. Above all children need parents that care about them.

Gay people are different than you and I. Does that mean they are wrong? We are all God's children. The God I know love everyone. If you God doesn't love gay people too then I want nothing to do with your God.

[Resident Loser]

...male and female are the norm...anything else is not...

No one is telling anyone what they are supposed to do...most clergy will say "hate the sin, but love the sinner"...On the most fundamental of levels, everything is a choice...if you choose to engage in behavior that is not the norm, that is your right...just don't expect any validation for your particular prediliction...whatever it's "cause"...making allowances for each and every "lifestyle" is like giving blue ribbons to all the 4yr.olds who participate in the dance recital...we want to be "inclusive"...we don't want anyone to feel slighted...BULL! That sort of thing teaches nothing...it just validates a lowered level of responsibility for ones' own actions. Among other things.

And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God...what version do YOU subscribe to?

jimHJJ(...Hey Pandora...get me than can of nightcrawlers woodja' !!!...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What about the rights of children?

Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.

We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment.

What is normal these days. Normal is whatever you adapt to. The concept of the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's is history. Kids are happy in a loving environment, not one defined by a television myth that never existed in real life. Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.

You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.

Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing. Have any of us straights choose to be straight, or is that just what comes natural to us?

As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

You do what EVERY parent should do. You teach your kids that parents NOW come in many forms. You teach them that little Joey's two dads love him just like you love your kids. You tell them that Joeys two dads love each other just like a mom and a dad love each other. You teach them to respect the people, not the sexual orientation. That is what I did with my boys, and I have raised three of the most open minded, accepting, and respectful boys myself based on this principle.

Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also

Rights to marriage benefits should have nothing to do with accounting for children. You don't marry just so you can have children, and you do not usually walk into marriages with a pre-made family(except in the case of divorce or child bearing before marriage). According to the latest statistics fewer and fewer married couples are even having children, a trend that has been going on for a little over a decade. Consider that people decide to get married to make a commitment to each other(just as gays would like to do) then there is no need to give straight couples(based on the sexual orientation) any more right than gays.

If you keep in mind that you are dealing with people and persons, and not sexual orientation, it should be a no brainer on how to make thing fair and equitable for everyone.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...male and female are the norm...anything else is not...

It maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person. It maybe the norm for millions of people, but not to millions of gay people. I feel as normal as a single man as I did as a married man. Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone? I sure hope not.

No one is telling anyone what they are supposed to do...most clergy will say "hate the sin, but love the sinner"...

No they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!

On the most fundamental of levels, everything is a choice...if you choose to engage in behavior that is not the norm, that is your right...just don't expect any validation for your particular prediliction.

Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born, or my sexual orientation. Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance." You and I both know it just doesn't work that way. Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong.

whatever it's "cause"...making allowances for each and every "lifestyle" is like giving blue ribbons to all the 4yr.olds who participate in the dance recital...we want to be "inclusive"...we don't want anyone to feel slighted...BULL!

For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

That sort of thing teaches nothing...it just validates a lowered level of responsibility for ones' own actions. Among other things.

Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right.

And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God...what version do YOU subscribe to?

I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ.

Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

I am pretty dang sure that most gay couples would take a strong exception to your rather narrow minded view of the commitment gay couples make to each other. Marriage now days is not a life long commitment, and you don't need to get married to have a bioligical responsibility to further the species. People now days have no concept of life long commitment and the current divorce rate supports that view. What you are trying to do here is glorify and honor something that really doesn't mean that much anymore. What is worse, is you are minimizing the level of committment that gay couples share with each other to prop up something that with the exception of gender, is identical. Love is love. Love crosses over the bounds of color, social class, sexual orientation, etc etc. People marry because they love each other, and want to be with each other. That perspective supercedes any gender based constraint.

And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words.


jimHJJ(...Hey Pandora...get me than can of nightcrawlers woodja' !!!...)[/QUOTE]

With pleasure, bon appetit!

[shokhead]

Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.



What is normal these days. Normal is whatever you adapt to. The concept of the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's is history. Kids are happy in a loving environment, not one defined by a television myth that never existed in real life. Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.




Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing. Have any of us straights choose to be straight, or is that just what comes natural to us?



You do what EVERY parent should do. You teach your kids that parents NOW come in many forms. You teach them that little Joey's two dads love him just like you love your kids. You tell them that Joeys two dads love each other just like a mom and a dad love each other. You teach them to respect the people, not the sexual orientation. That is what I did with my boys, and I have raised three of the most open minded, accepting, and respectful boys myself based on this principle.




Rights to marriage benefits should have nothing to do with accounting for children. You don't marry just so you can have children, and you do not usually walk into marriages with a pre-made family(except in the case of divorce or child bearing before marriage). According to the latest statistics fewer and fewer married couples are even having children, a trend that has been going on for a little over a decade. Consider that people decide to get married to make a commitment to each other(just as gays would like to do) then there is no need to give straight couples(based on the sexual orientation) any more right than gays.

If you keep in mind that you are dealing with people and persons, and not sexual orientation, it should be a no brainer on how to make thing fair and equitable for everyone.

Normal is whatever you adapt to? Did the jews adapt to being killed? A rapist on the warpath and women should adapt? I'm thinking that statement could me different. Kids most likly wont grow up gay but sexually confused or screwed up maybe. Fewer married couples are not having kids,there choice. Gays dont have a choice,they just cant have any. I'm not into the god thing but i'm thinking he had to expect us to have kids to keep this going. I can care less if somebody is gay,big deal but being married as its been for a few 100 years is between the man and women.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Normal is whatever you adapt to? Did the jews adapt to being killed? A rapist on the warpath and women should adapt? I'm thinking that statement could me different.

My statement doesn't adapt well to obsurdities. These things are all against the law, and the bible addresses them directly as sins. This is not the case for being gay, or a gay parent. Free your mind man.

Kids most likly wont grow up gay but sexually confused or screwed up maybe.

Kids are sexually confused with straight parents, so what is your point?

Fewer married couples are not having kids,there choice. Gays dont have a choice,they just cant have any.

Actually they can have kids. They can adopt one of the kids that a straight couple, drugged up from birth, had out of wedlock and abandoned, kick out, or messed up. You know, the ones in foster care.

I'm not into the god thing but i'm thinking he had to expect us to have kids to keep this going. I can care less if somebody is gay,big deal but being married as its been for a few 100 years is between the man and women.

Yes, but he expected us to have kids within the bounds of marriage. We have already broken that concept as witnessed by the thousands of kids born to single mothers. I was told by a gay couple that straights can keep the word marriage, it doesn't mean all that much to them anyway based on the fact that 24hr marriages and divorces happen alot(ask any las vegas wedding chapel). Catch these words, equal rights for all, equal right for all, no matter what you call the union.

[Justlisten2]

I'm against marriage period. I tell my three sons that they'll know they are ready for marriage when:

A) They start to lose interest in sex.
AND
B) They have so much money they can't possibly figure how to spend it all.
OR
C) She has so much money they can't possibly figure how to spend it all.


Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Misery loves company.

[gonefishin]

Hi guys/gals,


This is going to be extremely difficult to jump into the conversation with so many points that have already gone by.


but...

Any homosexual relationship is just that...it requires no legal validation...why should it? Most likely both are employed and can fend for themselves...should they be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why should sexual proclivity be guaranteed anything whatsoever?

Hi RL


I think one thing that confuses, is that there are (like it or not) two separate issues which may rise reactions that stem from the same place. From ones emotions or passionate opinions.

To me...this is very clear cut to be two issues. One, a moral question which each individual has to come to terms with on their own. Two (and in the United States), it's a constitutional issue.

Taking number two on first...I really believe that the Constitution is set up to give specific rights to that of the federal government and other rights to that of the state. On many issues the government cannot institute what is best for each and every state...what is good for the people of Rhode Island may not be a correct representation of the people of Louisiana.

But this is a democratic republic which does give individual states power to represent the people rather than one government to dictate to all people. This is why I believe that having the states vote on this matter as it becomes an issue within that state is the right thing to do. Not because I think that gay marriage is the right or wrong thing for humanity. But because I believe that in order for this American Democracy to work to it's strengths, we must sometimes take a road that is longer to travel. If you take short cuts that may lead you to the same place, it can run a far too dangerous risk of weakening the very path you may be trying to create...and paths to come after this. Which is apparent today...and yesterday as well.


going back towards number one...
People, many times, are driven to improvement by pride. Pride in him/her self and of their "kind" or from their "land". This is what gives the ability to many for self-improvement, even if it's a repressed people. If there is some sort of pride, there can become a drive toward moving forward or (at least) onward. I would agree that in the case of gays/lesbians, that until they are willing to take their being gay upon themselves they may not be able to take pride in ones self or their "people". Therefor until this pride is met they may (also) be incapable of moving forward. But, with simply a change of mind (so to speak), this gay person can have pride in themselves and are perfectly capable of moving forward toward self improvement.

This differs from the blacks during slavery in America because the blacks were deprived of nearly all of the "privileges of humanity"- family, homeland, language, religion, mores, or even to be of him/her self. No matter what internal battles this person would wage, they were still not able to have any of the attributes which lead a man toward self-improvement. They were not...of themselves. They were slaves of another. The gay person above does "own" many of these "privileges" and even if they won't move forward themselves, they have the capability of moving forward if they give themselves the ability to do so. This is even tho they may not have complete equality with straight males and females living in the U.S.


My own feelings are that this should be set in motion by the states. If it doesn't take place today, perhaps it will tomorrow. But to simply allow the federal government to dictate what can help one person may also be more harmful when that body that dictates is not representative of it's states...and for the states representative of its people. Not fully...but partially. As it probably should be

Ok, moving along>>> Today...I just think there are too many people too consumed with the notion that improving their "material self" is what it takes for self-improvement. Which leads to people wanting wanting wanting...and never enjoying what riches or goals they may have already gotten. There is (many times) a feeling of restlessness and an inability to sit still because there are better (unseen) riches ahead which far surpass the riches one doesn't see. This is a factor,that I think, plays a big part in not only divorce, but also in the not wanting to raise our kids. "We" would rather someone else do that while we pursue our own goals, that will certainly lead to a better life.


jmo (just my opinion)


dan

[Smokey]

A big problem is that too many people are too ignorant to realize that being gay is not a choice. It is who they are.

Only republicans think like that

I hope my post is not any indication that being gay is a choice. It is not.
They are born like that (like being born female or male) and shouldn't have any of their right denied because of that. The thing we are arguing here is institution of marriage and what describe it as such.

And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God.

I wished people wouldn't bring God in this matter as it make it much more difficult to discuss and resolve. This a human related issue and should be treated as such. As the good book said (being Bible, Koran, Torah or Da lama), human are equal in the eyes of god-being white, black, yellow, red, brown, male, female, gay or lesbian

Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.

Yes there is. Girls depend on their mother (female gender) to teach them about their body, desires and way they should behave. Having a male gender as their mother deny them that right.

Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.

Now the question becomes why do we have to "force" kids to adapt to their same sex parents if they don't have to? As I said, this is a good example of denying somebody right in order to protect somebody's else right.

Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing.

May be you should take a look at our prison. Most of them are not gay, but choose to do it.

Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Misery loves company.

May be by denying marriage to gay couples, we can reduce the rate of divorce
(no pun intended).

[shokhead]

Well for me,having the same sex married just isnt right and isnt what being married is about. Doesnt have anything to do with god,the state or anything other then thats just what feels right by me. Do i need to see a parade,no. Do i need to know thay are gay in the first place,no.

[Resident Loser]

TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.


TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)