Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[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]

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. 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.

Very well said Fisherman. Two issues of their right and their union rights to be called marriage are different. It is the same reason polygamy or living together shouldn't be called marriage.

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

I believe most are former than latter. Some may do it because it might get them of, but they are in very tiny minority.

That remind me of a joke from Sanford (Redd Foxx) show. He called a guy "Trisexual" because he tried sex, and liked it LOL

I said it had NOTHING to do with god. It is just mo.

It have nothing to do with God. This issue is complicated, and created enough controversy enough without God being involve

Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

[Resident Loser]

...how many relationships(hetero or homo) don't start with some physical attraction? If they don't ultimately "get off", then what IS the attraction? There's that pesky "biological urge" again...There is a male/female or dominant/submissive factor in every relationship(which is an oversimplification, so let's not jump on insignificant items)...some folks do it missionary style, others are into whips and chains. When someone who has engaged in the former discovers the latter and decides that is where it's really at, do they choose to go back to the former? Will their libido and lizard brain allow them to? It all has to do with self-indulgence and/or lack of self-control IMO.

It's like drugs and drinking or even eating hot and spicy foods...once you get to that "level" it's hard(no pun intended) to settle for less...everyone is driven by somethig, it's human nature.

I'm hardly sayin' it's the be all and end all, but every issue goes much deeper than it may seem to be on the face of it...it just requires analyzing ALL the possibilities...

And for anyone who is interested, I don't expect ANYONE to think as I do, but simply to think...

jimHJJ(...TTFN...)

[shokhead]

Yet when we have a different take other then yours,your blowing up. What is laid back lakewood? You've been to sports town have you?

[Resident Loser]

..."...one man's ceiling is another man's floor" so too, one man's "blowing up" is another man's frank and compelling argument...ahhh, so be it.

Sorry, Lakewood sounds like a lake by the woods...where folks laze about the day drinking iced teas...where they ignore things like, punctuation, capitalization and spelling, generally not sweating the details...

A sport's town you say? Wouldn't know. Sorry, establishment sports/entertainment isn't my cuppa'...I see it mostly an excuse for lard@$$, beer-swillin', sugary/salty snack food consuming dolts to scream at the teevee and avoid "sport" or any form of physical activity completely. Is that a "blow-up"?

jimHJJ(...enjoy...)

[shokhead]

Wow,i didnt see that your such an a$$hole. $uck you and where you live. Now thats blowing right up your a$$. Enjoy.

[Resident Loser]

...such an erudite and clever response...was it USC or Cal State that can claim you as one of it's own.

BTW, a$$hole is acceptable, although I prefer @$$hole...and as for $uck you, you probably want to use the more understandable f*ck you...the other one may be considered a flirty come-on by some...

jimHJJ(...p!$$ off...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

Smoke, I asked this same question of my neighbor, and his response was this; Since federal law gives "married" people certain benefits, and civil unions get none, the only way for equality to exist between hetero and homosexual committed relationships is the use of the word marriage. If the feds give the same benefits to civil unions(recognition is a start)as they do to marriage, then most gays would have no problem with having their committed relationships called civil unions. So, you have two ways to approach this, either get the feds to recognized civil unions, and give them the same benefits as married couples, or pursue the right to get married. Since the feds aren't budging, then only recourse that gays see is to challenge the right to equality in the court system.

This all makes perfect sense to me, and why I support their cause. Being a person of color is know first hand what it feels like to be discriminated against. It's demeaning, and if you are not strong in character, it will sift you away. I don't think anyone should have to experience this, I don't care what color you are, your handicap, or your sexual orientation.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gentlemen, can we keep this on topic and not personal please.