Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Koga No Goshi]

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.

And regarding the "special" male-female relationship... I ask again, how is that in any way challenged or questioned? At all? No one denies that is the basic foundation of procreation. Some would just deny it is the only possible, healthy or acceptable path to procreation, though no one is suggesting eliminating it or elevating something over it. Certainly women, for instance, are single mothers, or artificially inseminate, just as one example.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

I used to say that tax breaks for couples were stupid since they get a shared income bulk buying benefit anyway. If couples got rid of their tax benefits and it was combined with an overall diversification of the burden - everyone would have lower taxes relatively.

Kids benefit irrespective of government support because thye have two guardians and a more stable home life. The tax breaks and combined earnings bracket are stupid ideas for the modern era.

I honestly believe that Catholic marriage will be strengthened by a repeal of civil marriage as opposed to allowing homosexuals marry. I'm all for strenghtening spiritual marriage. Maybe then the people who have a joke of a marriage won't call it that and only those who want to go the extra mile will. The church could even make the requirements more strict.

[Koga No Goshi]

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.

I don't beleive that we choose to be straight. Heterosexuality is based on biological evidence. My parts are designed to engage in intercourse with a female irresepective of anything else I think or feel. I beleive that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with a strong subconscious desire to engage in a specifc fetish due to varied reasons. Since there are only illusory claims of biological homosexual function (some people claim that there is a lockness monster and even provide pictures - because they want it to be there) I am skeptic that it is anything but a desired myth for some.

I have a huge desire for asian women. Why asian women? Because my first "real" relationship was with an asian woman - because she had a nice body. OR I could lie to myself and say that I was born that way and that maybe my genetic ancestors were asians and that one was adopted or something. Bunk.

The mind invents logic for the whims of the will. I'll side with the the biological reality beofre I beleive the fantasy that sounds good politically right now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

Then don't think of them as celebrating people. Think of it as celebrating the union of a human penis and testes and a human vagina and ovaries. Everyone (execpt for people with a legitimate legal qualm) has one of the two of these and the union is clearly unique. It serves to bring people together more often that it forces them apart. It serves to bring new life into this world through a process that is the most magnificent and complicated that we have a handle on.

It is special - everyone should realize this and it should offend no one. If they don't want to recognize it as special anymore for whatever reason they don't have to. The fact remains that the laws are still on the books and the laws should be changed by democratic brainstorming.

I just remember that arguements always sound better when other people chime in an pretend like it is the only real way to think. I think my point of view is radical and shows a more complex understanding of human sexuality than people are giving me credit for here. But that is ok

[Askthepizzaguy]

I tend to agree that the government has little business telling churches or couples that their union is legitimate, and the idea of marriage automatically getting a tax benefit is absurd to me.

Marriage should be marriage, not a tax dodge. Children should not be used as tax shelters. At the same time, I'm not prepared to raise taxes on working families.

Let's get real, though. This debate is not about taxes for one side. The debate is about legitimizing a union they disagree with.

Bottom line, gay people deserve equal rights as straight people. They are allowed to be with the one they love, they are allowed to live together and express themselves freely in public, and they pay their taxes and are a large minority of our society. When two people who don't love each other can get married under the law for the purposes of tax benefits, and divorce quite easily, the thing we call marriage is diminished. One solution is to eliminate all the benefits for all, that would make things equal.

But then, married couples' taxes would increase because of the denial of exceptions in the tax code. They would lose many of their protected legal rights, and people would lose the right to speak in their spouse's interest in medical matters, settle their estates, or visit in the hospital.

The alternative is to simply allow gays the same civil rights as straight people. But then, conservatives and religious types object that two men can call themselves "married". So to compromise, they call it a "civil union", and many people, including people who aren't even couples, can enter into a legal union like this.

This should satisfy all sides, but it doesn't. It overlooks the right of two people to consider themselves married under the law, when by all measures, they are married. It's stepping on their liberties. Unless we are prepared to condemn gays back to the dark ages, it's time to welcome them as part of civilized society, and decide for ourselves whether or not we think it's "marriage".

The thing is, it is not up to us, and it never was. if two people want to be married, neither religions nor governments nor votes can stop them. They will live as a married couple, make their vows and celebrate their union in whatever way they deem fit, remember their anniversary, and defy any law we pass which tramples on their rights.

Some states have had it with the complications. Churches will not have to accept gay marriage, but states will have to. It's the fairest way forward, it's equality and justice under the law. If that makes people squeamish, too bad.

A miscarriage of justice would be to have churches be forced to accept gay marriage. I won't go that far. Church is a private group with it's own rules. They don't have to believe "God" likes gay marriage if they don't want to. But their rights will be upheld, as well as gays. Those who refuse to accept, will go to their graves disagreeing on principle. But everyone's rights will be protected.

[Koga No Goshi]

Then don't think of them as celebrating people. Think of it as celebrating the union of a human penis and testes and a human vagina and ovaries. Everyone (execpt for people with a legitimate legal qualm) has one of the two of these and the union is clearly unique. It serves to bring people together more often that it forces them apart. It serves to bring new life into this world through a process that is the most magnificent and complicated that we have a handle on.

It is special - everyone should realize this and it should offend no one. If they don't want to recognize it as special anymore for whatever reason they don't have to. The fact remains that the laws are still on the books and the laws should be changed by democratic brainstorming.

I just remember that arguements always sound better when other people chime in an pretend like it is the only real way to think. I think my point of view is radical and shows a more complex understanding of human sexuality than people are giving me credit for here. But that is ok

None of the reasons you gave as to why it's special require tax breaks, hospital vistation rights or property rights. You listed more esoteric and evoluntionary and biological reasons it should be special. Giving life partner couples "dignity rights" when it comes to illness, hospitals, medical decisions and not kicking one of the house and stealing it when the other dies is not taking away any recognition of male-female relationships as the basis of procreation and continuance of the species.

Or is it?

Let me edit. I do not agree that male female sexual relations are the special basis of anything. Family is the foundation of society. And families have always come in every shape and size. From grandparents raising kids to uncles raising kids to foster parents raising orphans to older sisters taking over when the parents die for the younger siblings, to single moms, to single dads, to a mom and sister, or a dad and grandmother, and every mix in between. And divorced parents, and a divorced parent who later coupled with a same gender partner, and gay parents from the get go.

I thought it over again, and I see no compelling reason that we should celebrate the nuclear family of mom + dad + kids as a special and privileged arrangement which has contributed more or less than all the other variations which have raised great people throughout history. That is a conceit, the more I think about it. I will walk with you as far as saying that, biologically, male + female is the basis of procreation, genetically this is undeniable. But so many cultures have done so many different things with parenting... from kids being raised by the mother's family, and not the biological parents, in old Japan, to aunts grandmothers and mothers being the only directly involved family for Pueblo Indians, to gender segregated parenting.

No two cultures have identical definitions of what the family is, or what constitutes an acceptable or healthy family arrangement. China would say we're degenerates for throwing away our old people. People in rural areas say city people are degenerates for all moving away from each other and having no long-lasting extended family ties or relationships.

The real binding tie of family is something subjective and personal to each family out there. And I really think it's arrogant, exclusive and closed-minded to arbitrarily pick one and say that is the special, privileged one that should be celebrated.

[ICantSpellDawg]

None of the reasons you gave as to why it's special require tax breaks, hospital vistation rights or property rights. You listed more esoteric and evoluntionary and biological reasons it should be special. Giving life partner couples "dignity rights" when it comes to illness, hospitals, medical decisions and not kicking one of the house and stealing it when the other dies is not taking away any recognition of male-female relationships as the basis of procreation and continuance of the species.

Or is it?

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

[Koga No Goshi]

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

Not in terms of equal rights under the law, no. No more than I think female family members should get hospital visitation rights and male family members should not. Read the below link/spoiler area if you believe they confer all the same rights, they do not.

As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

It is, frankly, straight people who think it's about the tax breaks. I've never met a gay person who said that was their reason for wanting marriage equality.

This is what one well-known couple in CA had to say about it:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These are relevant snippets from an interview with Brad Altman & George Takei:
Brad Altman: Another thing I wanted to add to what George just said, Michael, is to us, domestic partnership is sort of like being a second-class citizen. California, as you know, has a legal designation of domestic partnerships for same-gender couples, but that was never really an option that George and I considered because it doesn’t give the same weight or heft or emotion as is given to marriage in our society and culture.

And I think one of the key points about the California Supreme Court ruling that your readership should understand is that it’s not just that I don’t think domestic partnership is the same thing as a marriage – that is a key part of this Supreme Court ruling. They said domestic partnerships are not the same thing as marriage, and you and I know that’s the truth.

AE: What do you say to the couples out there, especially the young gay men who are disinterested in marriage or don’t think it’s something particularly worth fighting for?
BA: I think that they need to see it in a broader perspective of a struggle for civil rights for all Americans. There’s going to be a lot of words said between now and November 4th when the California voters decide on the anti-gay ballot initiative. But ultimately, when you boil it down, it’s about equal legal protection.

GT: There are many laws that litigate against gays and lesbians, bisexual and transgender people. Once [a gay couple] decide they want to be committed, there are other laws that make that relationship for a same-sex couple that much more unfair. They wouldn’t be able to share their pension rights, their insurance benefits, their inheritance rights. There are many, many laws that are unequal, and so equality in marriage is a great, both symbolic as well as a real, victory for the GLBT community.

BA: I always find it funny when you hear like same-sex marriages are going to destroy traditional marriage. Look at George and me for example. We’ve been together more than 21 years, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad times. We are a well-established couple. I look at us, and then you look at marriage in general and you see the divorce rate – and then look at George and my long-term relationship and I say my goodness, we represent stability in marriage. We’ll strengthen the institution of marriage.

BA: And that’s a good point because no matter what happens in November, and I’m optimistic that the voters in California will make the right decision because it’s really about fairness and equality and treating people the same. But George’s and my relationship is going to continue to be live long and prosper beyond November. But it is really an opportunity for California to send a message to the rest of the country … that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people are ready to take the responsibility of marriage. In the olden days, the anti-gay people said that we were promiscuous and couldn’t have a relationship because we were shallow people and now we’re saying let us have the responsibility of marriage and now they’re arguing that we’re going to destroy marriage. We can’t win!

GT: I think marriage is defined not as a union between a man and a woman but by a relationship bound by love. It’s love that defines marriage, not man and a woman.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

*

As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

**

*

No, I don't believe the immense biological differences matter.

A man can have his penis blown off in a war. A woman can be infertile. People are born intergendered, or hermaphroditic. All of these people have a right to get married, even if they cannot procreate.

If it's about love, it should not be any of anyone else's business, least of all the church's, especially if you don't even go to that church or believe its preachings.

**

I do agree it's discriminatory. I think income taxes are discriminatory as it is, because the rich have ways of avoiding them, and the poor cannot realistically pay, so the middle class get the whole burden.

The answer is a sales tax. That's a fair tax method. And we can avoid the red herring which is the tax code.

This is about marriage, not taxes. No one has any authority to say that gay people cannot fall in love and be together, and agree to be with only each other forever. That's marriage, pure and simple. The government cannot stop it, the church cannot. It's just a fact of life.

People just need to deal with it. The alternative is forcing your views on them, and possibly charging them with a crime when they have done no wrong. The solution is to treat one another equally.

[ICantSpellDawg]

*
The answer is a sales tax. That's a fair tax method. And we can avoid the red herring which is the tax code.

The Federal government doesn't do sales tax. The entire legal system of taxation would have to change. On top of that, after the Federal government increased already high State sales taxes for everyone, the poor would pay more money for everything that they consumed or purchased - thereby becoming poorer.

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

[Strike For The South]

Then don't think of them as celebrating people. Think of it as celebrating the union of a human penis and testes and a human vagina and ovaries. Everyone (execpt for people with a legitimate legal qualm) has one of the two of these and the union is clearly unique. It serves to bring people together more often that it forces them apart. It serves to bring new life into this world through a process that is the most magnificent and complicated that we have a handle on.

It is special - everyone should realize this and it should offend no one. If they don't want to recognize it as special anymore for whatever reason they don't have to. The fact remains that the laws are still on the books and the laws should be changed by democratic brainstorming.

I just remember that arguements always sound better when other people chime in an pretend like it is the only real way to think. I think my point of view is radical and shows a more complex understanding of human sexuality than people are giving me credit for here. But that is ok

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

[Koga No Goshi]

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

Very much agreed, Jerry Springer should serve as sufficient reason to disillusion anyone of the myth that simply being able to produce a baby by throwing a male and female together is nothing to be intrinsically celebrated without qualification.

And Tuff... you are attracted to certain races or even features (small or large hips etc.) because of a complex confluence of evolutionary markers and successful genes that I'm sure will not be fully catalogued and explained for a century or more. Everything from pheromones to psychology to identity to reproductive success to how nurturing or how strong or durable or how clever a provider a potential mate is. Yes some of it is tied in with reproduction, but some of it is tied in just with simple survival as well. The same complex confluence of factors which naturally incline you towards Asian or "exotic" (in your words) women naturally inclines others towards other things... big blond women, or tall men, or chubby black girls. So to claim some kind of special status or privilege just seems arbitrary... luck of the draw.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Federal government doesn't do sales tax. The entire legal system of taxation would have to change. On top of that, after the Federal government increased already high State sales taxes for everyone, the poor would pay more money for everything that they consumed or purchased - thereby becoming poorer.

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

I know the Fed doesn't do sales tax. However, it's the only fair system.

The entire system of taxation needs to change to plug all the loopholes in the system that people use to avoid taxes, especially the rich.

The poor end up paying most of their income in rent and food and many other things which are sales tax exempt. The rich spend their income on sports cars, yachts, jewelry, jet planes, and gold-plated dental floss. They would end up paying their fair share of the burden.

Without an income tax, I might actually be able to afford health insurance, and THEN MAYBE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULDNT HAVE TO PROVIDE ME WITH A HEALTHCARE PLAN! With an income tax, I see my social security disappear/go bankrupt, skip over me when handing out student aid because I'm not a minority, I see tax dollars go to foreign nations and wars and bailouts.

I want my money back, so I can purchase my own healthcare and not go around bleeding the system when I get sick.

We don't have to agree on taxes, and it is a separate issue. And I wish we could truly separate it from marriage, because marriage has nothing to do with taxes, or it shouldn't.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

Hahaha. There you go putting an evolutionary slant to things. What about a gay white guy being attracted to black guys. Is that an evolutionary method of spreading the seed too? Genetics is just a new and modern fatalism - I believe in free will tempered by conscious and un-conscious decision making. Genetics are tertiary and point, in no way, to inherent homosexuality. People try to use the "benevolent uncle" evolutionary theory but that has to be the lamest one.

You're right. It isn't impressive that the most amazing thing that human beings do is something that they didn't even figure out themselves.

The creation of human life is so impressive because we can't create it any other way than some variation of the natural method. We can't create it from scratch; Not 3 male gametes a transgender gamete and one and a half female gametes. We require 1 male and 1 female gamete.

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

[Strike For The South]

Hahaha. There you go putting an evolutionary slant to things. What about a gay white guy being attracted to black guys. Is that an evolutionary method of spreading the seed too?

You're right. It isn't impressive that the most amazing thing that human beings do is something that they didn't even figure out themselves.

The creation of human life is so impressive because we can't create it any other way than some variation of the natural method. We can't create it from scratch; Not 3 male gametes a transgender gamete and one and a half female gametes. We require 1 male and 1 female gamete.

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

I never called you insane, maybe thats what the gay guy likes I don't care but if can honestly sit here and tell me that the reason I'm attracted to women with big hips and big breasts isnt biological then IDK what to tell you. I dont think its special or unique either all mammals do it. Reproduction gets put on such a pedestal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

That statement serves the purpose of my withdrawral of support for the civil institution of marriage. It is so intrinsically FOR procreation that we should take it away from a state that can no longer defend it.

Give it to the various Churches. They have a much better understanding and track record . In fact, I don't view people married outside of the some mainline church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to. People married without God are just dating ;-)





Anyway, I've carried one side of this arguement for 4 pages largely on my own initiative. I'm off to bed.

[Strike For The South]

That statement serves the purpose of my withdrawral of support for the civil institution of marriage. It is so intrinsically FOR procreation that we should take it away from a state that can no longer defend it.

Give it to THe various Churches. They have a much better understanding of it and track record with it. In fact, I don't view people married outside of the Catholic church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to.

I think your religion is clouding the whole issue. Why do you care so much if gay couples have the same distiniction as married copules? People will still have kids its not like "Well the gays can marry so I no longer find the human experince worth passing on" I bet that wont happen

You know whats funny is that 50 years not many people viewed the catholic church as a church. More like a bunch occultists following a leader in a funny hat but we dont anymore because were not right 50 years ago. It is ok for things to change and be different the world will not end.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Give it to the various Churches. They have a much better understanding and track record . In fact, I don't view people married outside of the some mainline church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to. People married without God are just dating ;-)

[humor] People "married with God" are in some sort of bizarre three-way. But then again, according to the Catholics, God himself is three people, so it's more like a five-way. [/humor]

The church's understanding and track record discriminates against people of differing races getting married, by the way, and some churches have a history of allowing polygamy and underage unions, and all kinds of garbage.

But, this is all beside the point. I would rather not engage in attacking each other, even with humor. We disagree, I understand your viewpoint, you understand mine, we aren't going to convince each other. Let's just respectfully vote our separate ways and move on, eh?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think your religion is clouding the whole issue. Why do you care so much if gay couples have the same distiniction as married copules? People will still have kids its not like "Well the gays can marry so I no longer find the human experince worth passing on" I bet that wont happen

You know whats funny is that 50 years not many people viewed the catholic church as a church. More like a bunch occultists following a leader in a funny hat but we dont anymore because were not right 50 years ago. It is ok for things to change and be different the world will not end.

I know it won't literally end. I like to fight bad ideas just because they are bad. If they don't conform with my worldview then I am against them for fun. Why shouldn't I be? I think it is funny that some Koga told me that my God will be dissapointed in me for denying my vote or voice in the pursuit of gay civil marriage. Remember that? That was hilarious.

People could mandate that we eat sterilized crap for breakfast and the world wouldn't end. It doesn't mean it would be any better just because it is a change. You wouldn't get my support for that either.

ATPG - we don't understand one anothers view points. If I understood yours I would agree. No sense in dolling up the obvious - again the mind invents logic for the whims of the will. We will never understand one another because we all have different minds and experiences, but one day most of us will give up arguing and just deal with it. We'll probably come up with some BS explanation that doesn't hurt our self image.

[Strike For The South]

I know it won't literally end. I like to fight bad ideas just because they are bad. If they don't conform with my worldview then I am against them for fun. Why shouldn't I be? I think it is funny that some Koga told me that my God will be dissapointed in me for denying my vote or voice in the pursuit of gay civil marriage. Remember that? That was hilarious.

People could mandate that we eat sterilized crap for breakfast and the world wouldn't end. It doesn't mean it would be any better just because it is a change. You wouldn't get my support for that either.

But its not a bad idea.....I think this has run its course

[Askthepizzaguy]

I suppose the point was to explain why it is bad.

So far, I don't think the case has been made as to why it should affect straight people.

[Koga No Goshi]

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

We have said repeatedly that this has no bearing on the personal and emotional relationships humans form when choosing lifelong committed partners. Many of those couples cannot, or choose to never, procreate. So what difference does it make if one's male and female, or another is male male, or another is male and superfemale? (There's more than x and y you know.) For the purposes of recognizing the importance of the family unit, both families with and without procreative capability, in terms of shared rights as a family unit, it should have no bearing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I suppose the point was to explain why it is bad.

So far, I don't think the case has been made as to why it should affect straight people.

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

[Strike For The South]

Tuff if you are not hurting anyone or destroying property why should human whims not be indulged?

[ICantSpellDawg]

We have said repeatedly that this has no bearing on the personal and emotional relationships humans form when choosing lifelong committed partners.

"We have said". What does that matter? Personal and emotional relationships arn't the main point of marriage. Your answer begs the question. You're opinion is that because 2 people have sex with one another they should be entitled to marriage. Love isn't the qualifier because parents and friends who arn't sexually attracted to one another shouldn't be included.

I don't really get what marriage is to you. I don't get why it is even important. more than half of marriages end in divorce and most people are serial monogomists before marriage. You don't believe that marriage imparts any moral value because we are all evolved and genetically hardwired for polyamory. What is the point? What are you fighting for?

[Koga No Goshi]

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

The courts aren't adding a law. The courts are saying that exclusions built into a law extending rights only to a certain kind of people are unconstitutional. That is the role of the courts. I don't get this whole idea from the right that courts are supposed to just sit there and do nothing except on Roe v. Wade. They do have a role and when they rule that marriage and civil unions are not the same thing and are discriminatory, they are doing that job perfectly.

[Askthepizzaguy]

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

So your argument is not that gays marrying is bad, but that courts have the ability to rule things unconstitutional?

What power, if any, do you believe they have?

With respect, you are not defending your viewpoint, you are changing the argument, repeatedly. It's not about taxes, it's not about votes, it's not about courts, and it's not about churches or biological processes.

The debate should be about why gay marriage is such an awful thing. I have not heard a response other than it's what some people believe.

I don't want to offend or annoy you, so please don't take my line of questioning personally, and feel free to go to bed. I need to, myself.

[Koga No Goshi]

"We have said". What does that matter? Personal and emotional relationships arn't the main point of marriage. Your answer begs the question. You're opinion is that because 2 people have sex with one another they should be entitled to marriage. Love isn't the qualifier because parents and friends who arn't sexually attracted to one another shouldn't be included.

I don't really get what marriage is to you. I don't get why it is even important. more than half of marriages end in divorce and most people are serial monogomists before marriage. You don't believe that marriage imparts any moral value because we are all evolved and genetically hardwired for polyamory. What is the point? What are you fighting for?

I don't get what marriage is to YOU. According to the arguments you keep laying out, people shouldn't be allowed to have marriage rights until they pop out a kid.