Gay Marriage

[Jaimecbr900]

I don't have anything to do with the bible, but if I remember correctly, aren't we all born into sin in the first place? Later, QD.

I usually can follow where you're going with a point, but you lost me on this one bud.

Yes, we are all born sinners. No sin is greater than the other. People that sin CAN marry. But again, if the sin angle is brought up, then you have to admit there is a religious reason to marriage and therefore again open the dead end argument in this topic.

I was trying to stay steer away from the religion issue because noone can rebutt it. There's no way.

What about all the other issues Kev and I and now Random brought up? You know what I mean?

[quickdodge®]

I usually can follow where you're going with a point, but you lost me on this one bud.

I was just responding to blacknightteg's posting about being gay is a sin, and if you are born gay......you know? That's all. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

What about all the other issues Kev and I and now Random brought up? You know what I mean?

As I stated in my previous post, I can't comment too much because I don't know. I don't know if you can be born gay or if you choose for it. Like I said, earlier, I do NOT think that you are necessarily "fucked in the head" if you do choose to be gay. It's just like some men love BIG girls, some love small girls, some love U_G_L_Y girls, some love beautiful ones. Basically, I don't see that the person has issues. Later, QD.

[blacknightteg]

As I stated in my previous post, I can't comment too much because I don't know. I don't know if you can be born gay or if you choose for it. Like I said, earlier, I do NOT think that you are necessarily "fucked in the head" if you do choose to be gay. It's just like some men love BIG girls, some love small girls, some love U_G_L_Y girls, some love beautiful ones. Basically, I don't see that the person has issues. Later, QD.

its just their preference on what they like, i wouldnt condone someone for liking something the way that they do, you have to be really evil to do that

[Hulud]

its just their preference on what they like, i wouldnt condone someone for liking something the way that they do, you have to be really evil to do that

im confused on what you meant. do you mean that gay people are evil?

[blacknightteg]

i dont think i was contridicting myself, i was stating that whether you be born with it or some how choose to be gay, which i doubt very many people would ever do, i honestly dont think its a sin, whether it be supposedly quoted in the bible, or not even tho alot of the stuff said in the bible can be taken so many different ways...i for one dont think its a sin, and QD had a point, as soon as we are born, we are born with sin in us, now im catholic, and you might be something else, our view points maybe different and thats understandable but i still honestly dont think that its something anyone can help, and it is agains gods will, thats pretty f'ed up that he would make it to where someone was born with the intention of going to hell just because someone like the same sex

[Kevykev]

you guys still goin' i see

[Dragonfly5338]

FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
Sexual Desire Disorders: Aversion | Hypoactive
Sexual Arousal Disorders: Female Sexual Arousal Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder
Orgasmic Disorders: Female | Male | Premature Ejaculation
Sexual Pain Disorders: Dyspareunia | Vaginismus
Sexual Dysfunction Due to a General Medical Condition: Female Dyspareunia | Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder | Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Dyspareunia | Other Female Sexual Dysfunction | Other Male Sexual Dysfunction | Substance-Induced Sexual Dysfunction
Sexual Dysfunction NOS (302.70)
Paraphilias: Exhibitionism | Fetishism | Frotteurism | Pedophilia | Masochism | Sadism | Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6)
Sexual Disorder NOS (302.9)

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to.

[Nismo2nr]

FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
Sexual Desire Disorders: Aversion | Hypoactive
Sexual Arousal Disorders: Female Sexual Arousal Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder
Orgasmic Disorders: Female | Male | Premature Ejaculation
Sexual Pain Disorders: Dyspareunia | Vaginismus
Sexual Dysfunction Due to a General Medical Condition: Female Dyspareunia | Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder | Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Dyspareunia | Other Female Sexual Dysfunction | Other Male Sexual Dysfunction | Substance-Induced Sexual Dysfunction
Sexual Dysfunction NOS (302.70)
Paraphilias: Exhibitionism | Fetishism | Frotteurism | Pedophilia | Masochism | Sadism | Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6)
Sexual Disorder NOS (302.9)

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to.

PWND, good counterpoint...
still think they got a couple marbles missin but thats me.
nice post tho

[FrnkPwrs]

FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
....Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6) ...

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to.

Well, if a woman thinks she is a boy, and wants to date other women, is she not considered gay? IS that not gender identity disorder? So is that the gender confused or the gay?

[Dragonfly5338]

Well, if a woman thinks she is a boy, and wants to date other women, is she not considered gay? IS that not gender identity disorder? So is that the gender confused or the gay?

No, a lesbian doesn't consider herself a man. She knows she has a vagina. We're talking Buffalo Bill-esque behavior AKA Silence of the Lambs. Where a man or a woman BELIEVES he or she is the opposite sex and goes to extreme measures to hide or change his or her true gender.

Remember: A mental disorder is classified when:

A) It causes disruption in the way your daily life functions, ie: work, school, etc.
B) It causes you extreme mental duress
C) It causes harm to self
D) It causes harm to others

I don't think a girl eating another girl out classifies under that. :p

[FrnkPwrs]

No, a lesbian doesn't consider herself a man. She knows she has a vagina. We're talking Buffalo Bill-esque behavior AKA Silence of the Lambs. Where a man or a woman BELIEVES he or she is the opposite sex and goes to extreme measures to hide or change his or her true gender.

I dont think your seeing what I was trying to say. You agree that a lesbian doesnt consider themself a man right? Ok, but a if a female considers themself a man, and wants to persue another woman, they are still denied marriage. So are you saying that you are in agreement of gender-confused people being able to marry? Or do you see a problem with that too?

There was a big story on the news about some transsexual in Cali who was like 18 and he was living as a female since he was like 12 and was killed by some dudes who figured it out. That aside, they lived a female life. Female clothes, female name, female room at home, considered themeself female full blooded, just no surgery. If gays arent allowed to marry, he/she would not be able to marry. So since by your own admission that gender misidentification is very valid, I assume that you think that those people should have the ability to marry same sex?

[Kevykev]

I think he meant Condemn not condone as he typed.

To Condemn = Evil

[Hulud]

o ok that makes sense. lol. wow one word can really change the meaning of a sentence

[Kevykev]

always man, always.

[Jaimecbr900]

I follow you now QD. Thanks.

Now, why is it that we are still talking about "sins" and lack thereof? This should NOT be a debate about RELIGION folks. Again, I challenge anyone to find a viable and real "religion" that ADVOCATES homosexualism. Some are more tolerant than others, but NONE have ever refuted what it says in the BIBLE. NOONE. So, let's get away from RELIGION because that's a short debate. It's crystal clear what the church's view on this subject is. But once again, that's NOT the only view here or the only reason why this should NOT be done.

Politically, it can still be a very prickly decision. It opens up the door for every nut job to "claim" that their own definition of marriage should now be legal too. Again, what about the additional costs for essentials such as insurance and benefits? Who's going to absorb those costs and why should they if they didn't agree with it? Then you also then open up legal liabilities such as lawsuits for discrimination when you turn down someone (because of costs) and then suddenly they turn it around to something else. Again, we could go on tons of tangents if we really dug. But why should we?

[Hulud]

Again, we could go on tons of tangents if we really dug. But why should we?

its something to talk about that people have strongs feelings on

[blacknightteg]

i wasnt stating that it was a mental disorder in my previous post, if all that was directed towards me

[4dmin]

i don't see what the big deal is... there has been homosexual acts since before christ and the wave of christianity, the romans/greeks used to engage in group orgies all the time.

i believe there should be a definition to "marriage" for sure, but it shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, b/c if we do that than why don't we allow incest if your believe in christianity your obviously a product of INCEST from ADAM & EVE to NOAH... we can't adapt laws on doctrine supposeably written BC, they didn't even have automobiles or toilets back then.

- underage children shouldn't be allowed to marry (under 18)
- blood related reletives shouldn't be allowed to marry

but who gives a shit if adam & steve want to unite in marriage, why should be they denied the right, they pay taxes, they vote, they are us born citizens... i'm sorry but over 50% of black males will see some type of correction institute in their lifetime should we deny them the right to marry & produce; just so we can try to end a cycle. not gonna happen, we aren't talking about animals, but human beings like you or i.

[Jaimecbr900]

i don't see what the big deal is... there has been homosexual acts since before christ and the wave of christianity, the romans/greeks used to engage in group orgies all the time.

You're going back to arguing this on religious merit again. Remember, that's a closed end argument.

i believe there should be a definition to "marriage" for sure, but it shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, b/c if we do that than why don't we allow incest if your believe in christianity your obviously a product of INCEST from ADAM & EVE to NOAH... we can't adapt laws on doctrine supposeably written BC, they didn't even have automobiles or toilets back then.

So there is agreement on atleast one point. Definition. Question is, where is it gonna come from and how to decide?

- underage children shouldn't be allowed to marry (under 18)
- blood related reletives shouldn't be allowed to marry

Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification. This is one of those. Everybody wants to dress it up and fight it on moral side, yet the legal side is even pricklier.

but who gives a shit if adam & steve want to unite in marriage, why should be they denied the right, they pay taxes, they vote, they are us born citizens...

I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

BTW,Marriage is NOT a "right". It is NOT in the Constitution anywhere. Marriage, legally, is granted thru a license. The issuing body granting ANY license sets the rules of that license. Unlike taxes, voting, and citizenship, there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage".

i'm sorry but over 50% of black males will see some type of correction institute in their lifetime should we deny them the right to marry & produce; just so we can try to end a cycle. not gonna happen, we aren't talking about animals, but human beings like you or i.

You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.

Now, you're inferring that by arguing against Gay marriages it somehow means that you are trying to estinguish a particular segment of people, i.e. trying to do away with them all together......???? Is that what you're saying?

[Hulud]

I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

so your saying that because you dont like what they do behind closed doors they shouldn't get the same privledges as you because you dont want your insurance premiums to raise?
You're going to be that selfish? How can you live with yourself and know that your being that greedy?

"Human is a degrading word, as human i renounce myself"
that quote works perfectly here

[Jaimecbr900]

so your saying that because you dont like what they do behind closed doors they shouldn't get the same privledges as you because you dont want your insurance premiums to raise?

Yep.

Just like I don't want to pay for someone who doesn't work to sit their lazy ass at home....just like I don't like to pay for bad drivers that are demographically the same as me......just like I don't like to pay for fraudulent insurance claims.....Yep, just like I don't like to already pay for the anything that is someone else's fault. Imagine that.

Do you?

You're going to be that selfish? How can you live with yourself and know that your being that greedy?

Greedy? I pay my way for everything I do. I expect people to do the same. What's wrong with that?

[Hulud]

Yep.

Just like I don't want to pay for someone who doesn't work to sit their lazy ass at home....just like I don't like to pay for bad drivers that are demographically the same as me......just like I don't like to pay for fraudulent insurance claims.....Yep, just like I don't like to already pay for the anything that is someone else's fault. Imagine that.

Do you?



Greedy? I pay my way for everything I do. I expect people to do the same. What's wrong with that?

who said someone was going to sit their lazy ass at home? Are you married? Do you have a wife/husband? Do they stay at home? If not what makes you think a gay person is going to stay at home? Is this country supposed to treat everyone equally? So then if we are supposed to then we must amend marriage and say between two humans. Rather than a man and a wife.

If you want to talk about lazy people we shouldnt be talking about gays we should be talking about the sons o' bitches who sit around pop out babies just to collect their damn welfare check! Sorry they just really piss me of. lol

[blacknightteg]

You're going back to arguing this on religious merit again. Remember, that's a closed end argument.





So there is agreement on atleast one point. Definition. Question is, where is it gonna come from and how to decide?





Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification. This is one of those. Everybody wants to dress it up and fight it on moral side, yet the legal side is even pricklier.




I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

BTW,Marriage is NOT a "right". It is NOT in the Constitution anywhere. Marriage, legally, is granted thru a license. The issuing body granting ANY license sets the rules of that license. Unlike taxes, voting, and citizenship, there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage".




You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.

Now, you're inferring that by arguing against Gay marriages it somehow means that you are trying to estinguish a particular segment of people, i.e. trying to do away with them all together......???? Is that what you're saying?

are u a homophobe or somesthit man? i mean i can tell who you prolly voted for in this past election....but shit man, gays should be able to be married they should be able to have the same rights as straight people, marrige for example, i mean, honestly it may not be in the constitution, but isnt there that statement in the constitution " all men are created equal" well if thats the case n its true, then they should be able to be married, i feel like this whole political argument is the same thing for when there was the whole civil rights movemnt, and then the right for gurls to vote

[Jaimecbr900]

are u a homophobe or somesthit man? i mean i can tell who you prolly voted for in this past election....but shit man, gays should be able to be married they should be able to have the same rights as straight people, marrige for example, i mean, honestly it may not be in the constitution, but isnt there that statement in the constitution " all men are created equal" well if thats the case n its true, then they should be able to be married, i feel like this whole political argument is the same thing for when there was the whole civil rights movemnt, and then the right for gurls to vote

First off, you don't know anything about me, so don't misinterpret your lack of knowledge.

Second, why is it that if someone doesn't agree with Gay marriages and PROVES intelligently why they feel that way.....there are still ying yangs like you that want to over simplify it into homophobia? Can you not rebutt my point of view any more intelligently than the ole redneck anecdote of, "gee whiz, you must be a homophobic if you don't like Gay marriages...."???? If I truly was a homophobe, I'd stick to the ONLY argument that NOONE could argue against....religion. I could hide behind that rock solid stance forever then. But I don't, and I'm not. I have nothing to fear nor envy from a homosexual person. My point has always been the same two: 1. I believe it should not be allowed for few reasons; 2. IF it's allowed, it opens a door that can never be closed again. So, if you wanna argue against either of those two points with me, go for it. Until then, don't call me shit since you don't know shit about me.

Finally, you obviously didn't get it, so I'll repeat for your benefit. "Marriage" is NOT a right of anyone. Not me, not you, not your parents, not anyone. We should be discussing the LEGALITY or lack thereof of "marriage" and NOT if its a sin, not if its homophobic, not if its what the church wants, etc etc etc. LEGALLY a marriage had previously been DEFINED as between a man and woman. The question should be: LEGALLY what can we expect IF we allow the DEFINITION to expand to man and woman and whatever else. If you can't elaborate yourself any better than to say, "duh, are you a homophobe or what man?".....then just don't say anything at all then.

[FrnkPwrs]

Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

Me personally, I can care less if some guy that is 35 wants to marry their 42 year old sister. I understand that it is a problem because of the genetic abnormalities in kids, but I honestly never met someone who was in love with their sister. I know tons of people who have hooked up with 5-6th tier cousins though. Thats not illegal, but do we need to have a big discussion on preserving that sancatity of a "family"?

I think the gay mans argument is a little more complex than how your putting it. You dont really hear much about gay marriages ending in the same manner the hetero ones. Look at the gay marriage divorce rate. When you think about gay marriage, do thing like marrying over a child, money, citizenship, being forced by parents, etc. Usually the main factor that a lot of these people are on the news talking about is love, not financial benefits. Usually the financial part is brought up by straight sympathisers [examplein many of the post of this board]. The strong point is why shouldnt 2 people who love each other be able to marry.

One of your main points is the financial effect that it may have on society. Another point that many politicians have is that want to preserve the "pureness" of marriage. Ok, understood. But what about the legitmacy of a straight marriage. Like you said, it is a license. I mean, the government ensures that I cant marry people from the Dominican Republic without going
through some sort of review. I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!

And in the same right, there are people on this VERY BOARD who believe that there should be no interracial dating, so Im sure that they believe that interracial marriage is wrong too. And they could use the bible, the effect that it would have on their insurance, the way it opens up things like incestual [sp] relationships, etc. Do you believe that interracial dating is wrong? Why or why not?

[quote]Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification.[quote]
Once again, what makes this issue so different than an interracial relationship? You yourself admitted that you were in one once in your life. Like I said, nobody looks at whats wrong with some people that are already married. What makes a gay couple so different that any other type? Limits, I can understand, but refusal to accomadate a group I can not.

I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

LOL, do you realize that those gay married couples also pay the things that your hetereo couple pays as well? LOL, I seriously doubt that because you are gay you are exempt from the additional costs of healthcare, insurance, and lowering and benefits. If there are 20k extra straight marriages a year, do people raise the same issues?

You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.

Very far indeed. But is denying the right to marry a step forward or backward for the gay community? Is it being selective based on someones sexual orientation?

[Dragonfly5338]

I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!

I may not agree with everything you say, Frank - but that statement right there hit the nail on the head. Props, man. Or Britney Spears and her 24 hour marriage, etc, etc..

[Jaimecbr900]

Me personally, I can care less if some guy that is 35 wants to marry their 42 year old sister. I understand that it is a problem because of the genetic abnormalities in kids, but I honestly never met someone who was in love with their sister.

They're out there. Trust me. And my only point was.....what happens when those looneys suddenly think they too can challenge what THEIR definition of "marriage" should be? They will have to be heard and this whole political firestorm would start over again. Maybe not to the same scale, but it could.

I think the gay mans argument is a little more complex than how your putting it. You dont really hear much about gay marriages ending in the same manner the hetero ones. Look at the gay marriage divorce rate.

The numbers are skewed bud. Since gay marriages LEGALLY don't exist, neither do figures about their dissolution. Unlike hetero marriages where everything from blood work to licenses exist to be able to get those numbers from, gay marriages have until now been simply "unions" that noone would ever be able to track. So there is no way in this world that anyone could say with any accuracy that gay marriages last or don't last as long as hetero ones. No way. They're basically ghosts now, so they can't be counted.

I mean, the government ensures that I cant marry people from the Dominican Republic without going through some sort of review. I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!

Point well taken. I actually agree with your logic there. I also agree that there are many many ridiculously messed up hetero marriages. I grant you that.

Once again, what makes this issue so different than an interracial relationship?

Because it's about hetero vs homo and not black vs white.

You yourself admitted that you were in one once in your life.

I'm STILL in one bud. Don't divorce me off . Going on 12 yrs married, 18 yrs total together. She's GA born and raised, and I.....well, you know where I'm from.

Limits, I can understand, but refusal to accomadate a group I can not.

We're right back to ground zero. Who's gonna set those limits? Again, no matter what your answer to that question is.....some group somewhere will say it's not fair. What then?

LOL, do you realize that those gay married couples also pay the things that your hetereo couple pays as well? LOL, I seriously doubt that because you are gay you are exempt from the additional costs of healthcare, insurance, and lowering and benefits.

I'm not saying they don't pay for their own benefits. I'm saying insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise premiums. Here is one handed to them on a platter. A large number of people that now can go on a policy TOGETHER (because they suddenly can when their "union" becomes a legal "marriage") rather than as individuals. Insurance companies see a decline in one side, what do you think is going to happen to the other in order for them to keep profits up? They're certainly not gonna eat it. They're gonna pass it on to everyone else, including them too.

[FrnkPwrs]

The numbers are skewed bud. Since gay marriages LEGALLY don't exist, neither do figures about their dissolution. Unlike hetero marriages where everything from blood work to licenses exist to be able to get those numbers from, gay marriages have until now been simply "unions" that noone would ever be able to track. So there is no way in this world that anyone could say with any accuracy that gay marriages last or don't last as long as hetero ones. No way. They're basically ghosts now, so they can't be counted.

Maybe we dont have much to sample data from in the US, and the rush of marriages pre-media storm havent had time to be a good sample source since they havent had as much time, but in other countries where it is legal, the gay marriage divorce rate is a little less than 1%. Here in the US, the hetero Christian divorcec rate is 25%.

Because it's about hetero vs homo and not black vs white.

But the situations can be seen as similiar. I fully realize that they are seperate situations, but if it werent for changes in the past, then that group would be in the same position today. I dont think that the gay and lesbian crowd have things as bad as black people in the 60s, but I do very seriously think that they arent treated as equally as everyone else.

We're right back to ground zero. Who's gonna set those limits? Again, no matter what your answer to that question is.....some group somewhere will say it's not fair. What then?

The government will set those limits. But the government is supposed to work without bias. Is it not the governments job to take into consideration the desires of the people? Gay people are taxpayers, do they not deserve to feel the government is acting in their best interest when it comes to an issue such as this?

I'm not saying they don't pay for their own benefits. I'm saying insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise premiums. Here is one handed to them on a platter. A large number of people that now can go on a policy TOGETHER (because they suddenly can when their "union" becomes a legal "marriage") rather than as individuals. Insurance companies see a decline in one side, what do you think is going to happen to the other in order for them to keep profits up? They're certainly not gonna eat it. They're gonna pass it on to everyone else, including them too.

But that can happen in any situation. If you live in a state where they want to lower the driving age, a new vehicle is invented so people needs to be licensed and insured for it, etc. I just think the right for someone to do something to emotionally advance them outwieghs the extra couple of dollars I would hae to pay a year.

[4dmin]

Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

there is rull proof of why marrying w/ in your family is wrong and underage children... there is tons of mental/physical anguish involved... but gays marrying is a compeletly different issue, if two guys marry what is the harm?

Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits?

yeah b/c the cost are very minimual... its not like there is millions of gay couples, and millions of gay couple w/o insurance. i work w/ 2 gays at work both have insurance what would be the difference if they got married? none, b/c if they were straight you would feel even more of a burden on your pocket. you have kids, have you every taken a look at what medical cost are for children. obviously gays can't reproduce as easily.

there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage".

but there is you have to be STRAIGHT

[Jaimecbr900]

there is rull proof of why marrying w/ in your family is wrong and underage children... there is tons of mental/physical anguish involved... but gays marrying is a compeletly different issue, if two guys marry what is the harm?

Some people call the Bible "proof" for much grander things, including homosexuality. Again, religion aside.....there are many many "reformed" gays that all now say the same thing about homosexuality that you are saying about underage marriages. I saw a documentary just last week about this guy that is now a "reformed" gay person (he used to be gay and is now straight) in which HE said that being gay WAS, just as you stated above, mentally and physically demanding.

Either way, you still can't ignore that allowing one sect of our population to fight their way into legally getting something is not also going to have the same effect on the rest of the population. Crazy or otherwise. You will then have a never ending cycle of challenges to the definiton of marriage. When would it end?

yeah b/c the cost are very minimual... its not like there is millions of gay couples, and millions of gay couple w/o insurance. i work w/ 2 gays at work both have insurance what would be the difference if they got married?

I know for a fact that insurance for a married couple is more expensive than single insurance. So there is an additional cost.

you have kids, have you every taken a look at what medical cost are for children.

Exactly the same reason why insurance companies, in their pursuit to maintain their profits high, would then pass the additional costs of the sheer volume influx to you and me both.

obviously gays can't reproduce as easily

Not neccesarily. Look at most gay and lesbian couples. They all have children. Which to be honest, then means that they are adopting (which is a good thing).

[4dmin]

^ what a homo

[Jaimecbr900]

^ what a homo

I knew you'd go there......

[4dmin]

Not neccesarily. Look at most gay and lesbian couples. They all have children. Which to be honest, then means that they are adopting (which is a good thing).

most gay couples i know either don't have kids or have them from previous straight marriages... but the likely hood of gay couples having children is less than your normal straight couple, obviously due to the ++ or -- factor...

I knew you'd go there......

lol you know me too well... shit i always have to make a funny at the best time...

[quickdodge®]

Later, QD.

[Hulud]

haha wow did you do that?

[Jaimecbr900]

haha wow did you do that?

If you email him a pic of you, he'll be glad to put it right in the middle of the pack too......

[blacknightteg]

fucking polititions......government fucks up every god damn thing in society today....FUCK BUSH!

[quickdodge®]

Lolol. Later, QD.

[Hulud]

o yeah!