Frist endorses ban on gay marriages.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Ask them if they want to be able to marry. They will tell you no, because a lot of the "homosexual" lifestyle is the promiscuity.

And your gay acquantences all speak for all the gay people in the world.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

But this gay marriage shit isnt so gays can be seen as equal as the traditional man-wife human relationship (btw, it ISNT. Man and woman can produce offspring, homosexuals without scientific help cannot, big diff there), its to be able to CHANGE the dynamic of what we call a "family".

So if a heterosexual couple can't have children except by artifical means, they shouldn't be allowed to get married? They aren't a "family"?

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Gator - Do you beleive that society changes over time? That things that were once a standard change as people change? Shouldn't we as a nation change to accomodate this new age? Or do you really think we should try desparately to cling to past ideals that don't fit with modern times?

Marriage is not what it used to be. I look at my generation (I'm gonna be 30 at the end of this month) and I see a sad state of affairs. Starter marriages. Open marriages. Divorce. Kids getting married. Kids having kids. Parents that have "days off" from their kids.
Family just doesn't mean as much any more.

I find it interesting that as a kid I remember having family dinner. We sat at the table and had dinner as a family. Now, most apartments don't have room for a table and chairs, and the ones that do generally have a computer set up in that area instead. It seems like such a small thing, but I find it to be a wonderful example of how far the family unit has fallen.

Like the article posted above mentions, marriage is under attack right now and needs to be preserved. Changing the definition will not help this at all. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Bob Barr.

You are saying that marriage/family is breaking down. I'm not that alarmist, but I do think that people treating marriage casually (though few will admit they do so) is abhorent and needs to be addressed.


I also think that certain concepts are essentially timeless, and marriage is one of them. Perhaps the civil union idea has merit, but marriage has always been a religious function first, and a state function second. I don't think loosening up the definition of marriage will help it at all, and it insults the religious side of the definition...you don't have to agree w/the religious view here, but it is the basis of the law.

I believe that STATES should decide through public VOTE what they want to do, and that these efforts should be based upon setting up some kind of new institution that recognizes/defines gay unions and places attached responsibilities on said unions.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship.

So if black people could somehow choose not to be black, would you want them to change too?

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

So if black people could somehow choose not to be black, would you want them to change too?

*coughMichaelJacksoncough*

[Immortal Goat]

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.

Touche'

but kind of a bad example, since him being that way doesn't mean we should accept the behavior. Pedophiles are forced to undergo counseling to change their behavior and help them resist their sexual urges.

[Mockery]

Yes, now let's compare pedophiles with homosexuals. They're all equally evil after all, right?

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Mockery

Yes, now let's compare pedophiles with homosexuals. They're all equally evil after all, right?

do you honestly think that either of us was making that comparison? please.

[Mockery]

since him being that way doesn't mean we should accept the behavior.

Words like these all tie back into the original topic of discussion. You can be as subtle as you want about it, but the jabs are still evident.

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator -

So if marriage is religious first, then are you saying the people who aren't religious should not be able to marry? There are a lot of religions out there......which ones should be allowed to marry and which shouldn't? What about religious gays? Should they be given special permission?

Marriage is about love and commitment. About wanting to be with somone for the rest of your life. All people regardles fo race, religion, social standing or sexual orientation should be allowed to marry if they so choose too.
If marriage is about values, then why should those who have those values be punished simply because they are gay?
A loving couple is a loving couple regardless of any factors.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Gator -

So if marriage is religious first, then are you saying the people who aren't religious should not be able to marry? There are a lot of religions out there......which ones should be allowed to marry and which shouldn't? What about religious gays? Should they be given special permission?

Marriage is about love and commitment. About wanting to be with somone for the rest of your life. All people regardles fo race, religion, social standing or sexual orientation should be allowed to marry if they so choose too.
If marriage is about values, then why should those who have those values be punished simply because they are gay?
A loving couple is a loving couple regardless of any factors.

Perhaps you didn't understand me. I refer you back again to the Barr article. There is a need for some kind of civil arrangement to legitamize gay love, no matter what my or anyone feels about it, there is a need. My point is that if marriage is at its core a religious institution that has then been adopted by the govt, then you should be looking to not change the definition of the first, but to add a whole new arrangement for gays.

I can call my truck a Corvette all day long. I can make a family rule forcing everyone to do the same, but at the end of the day it is still a truck because that is what the factory made it as. I'm saying its time for society to look at giving gays Corvettes.


What YOU are saying is that you want people outside of the religious structure to have a say in what a core religious principle says. That is a silly as the religious people who tell the gays what to do.

[Preechr]

Is now an appropriate time to ask what business the government has in favoring married people in general over single people at all?

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.

Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is ridiculous, because pedophilia is known to be directly detrimental to society, whereas homosexuality between consenting adults has not been proven to be detrimental to society. To paraphrase Ror:
"Calling a male pedophile who attacks boys a 'homosexual' is like calling a nuclear weapon a 'chair' because you can sit on it."

[Vibecrewangel]

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.

Gator - Then what about religious gays and non religious straight people? I'm just saying that if religion is the qualifier then that qualifier needs to be across the board.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo.

HAHAHA!!! Good One!

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.

Ok, then... I'll ask it: What the Hell does it matter who is married and who is not? I'm all for the social celebration of a permanent union between ANY two adults, providing we're not talking about those that would produce offspring that would further cloud the gene pool... How does that become a matter of governmental preference?

It's argued that insurance companies favor married folks. That has a statistical basis. Marriage is generally a safer and healthier lifestyle than promiscuity. Private companies like Disney are changing policies to extend benefits to same sex partners... but that's THEIR decision to make, not Uncle Sam's.

Any preference the government might make toward a particular citizen's lifestyle should be stricken from law, unless another person's lifestyle or life is threatened by it. If you can't agree with that, then I hope the feds come after your own life next.

[Jeanette X]

HAHAHA!!! Good One!

Corrective make-up on vitiligo patient.

What Michael Jackson might have really looked like when this picture was taken under his corrective make up.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Ok, then... I'll ask it: What the Hell does it matter who is married and who is not? I'm all for the social celebration of a permanent union between ANY two adults, providing we're not talking about those that would produce offspring that would further cloud the gene pool... How does that become a matter of governmental preference?

It's argued that insurance companies favor married folks. That has a statistical basis. Marriage is generally a safer and healthier lifestyle than promiscuity. Private companies like Disney are changing policies to extend benefits to same sex partners... but that's THEIR decision to make, not Uncle Sam's.

Any preference the government might make toward a particular citizen's lifestyle should be stricken from law, unless another person's lifestyle or life is threatened by it. If you can't agree with that, then I hope the feds come after your own life next.

Well, Preechr, good to see you. Now, I have to say that I believe that Marriage is a wonderful institution in our society. If it didn't make a difference, then there would be no reason for gays to want to get in on the action.

I believe that the preservation of the family unit, gay or straight, is so vital and essential to our society that it preempts all other govt responsibilities. I think that if that means the govt allows filing taxes, etc for convenience purposes that it is completely fine.

I think that if the govt gives bonuses in special cases to married couples it can be ok as well.

And that is about it. Given that I think we should go to a national sales tax, etc etc etc, I feel my other positions do not conflict with my desires to promote family units. Simply, two loving parents will always raise a child better than one. Bring it on.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.

Gator - Then what about religious gays and non religious straight people? I'm just saying that if religion is the qualifier then that qualifier needs to be across the board.

As I said, religion was the basis of this and it was adopted by the govt for various reasons. The other situations do not try to change the definition of marriage. And I am open to examining other options. My truck is still not a sports car! But I can go buy a sports car as well. I won't stop you from buying a sports car.

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator - you may have posted it before, but could you post the definition of marriage for me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your point.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Gator - you may have posted it before, but could you post the definition of marriage for me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your point.

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

This is of course, my definition. I really hate when people c/p definitions.

[Vibecrewangel]

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

Okay, now where does religion fit in?
And what about people who either don't want kids or can't have them? (Unless of course having kids is not necessary for a family. I personally do not think they are.)

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Okay, now where does religion fit in?
And what about people who either don't want kids or can't have them? (Unless of course having kids is not necessary for a family. I personally do not think they are.)

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.

Society is changing to be sure, and we need to adapt our govt and civil structure. I just personally believe that divorcing the word 'marriage' from the REAL issue of getting gays the civil rights afforded those in a marriage is the way to go. This takes away the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God.

And I have read compelling cases for children being a goal and/or irrelevant to the formation of a family. I am undecided on the issue.


Now that I think about it, I think there is a stronger case for removing PRO-marriage benefits than there is a case for adding more marriage/civil union/gay-bond benefits. I'm all for shrinking govt programs and reducing taxes at every turn.

[Preechr]

DICTIONARY DOT COM DEFINES MARRIAGE AS...

haha...

Maybe the definition should be expanded to include the concept that married people, with or without chiddren, are more stable than single folk, thus better for society on the whole.

oOps... can't do that... that would leave the door open for those filthy gay boys and their shiny pants!

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Preechr

DICTIONARY DOT COM DEFINES MARRIAGE AS...

haha...

Maybe the definition should be expanded to include the concept that married people, with or without chiddren, are more stable than single folk, thus better for society on the whole.

oOps... can't do that... that would leave the door open for those filthy gay boys and their shiny pants!

Shiny pants AND fishnet muscle shirts


*people in office read over shoulder and commence belly laughing