Gay Marriage Ruling

[meadandale]

It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.

Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.

As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.

Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.

Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?

Animal sacrifices, similarly, used to be quite common (and still are in some cultures). We think nothing of killing animals to eat, to help us develop better drugs or for no reason at all because their owners have abandoned them. However we seem to look down on killing them as an offering to a ‘god’. Why is that?

Should anything go? Everything is fair game now? Or is gay ‘marriage’ simply OK just because it is your new pet cause and you say it is ok?

[zk]

“Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren’t made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?”

Our sex organs don’t “prove” any such thing. Homosexuals do a fine job of pleasing each other just the way they are. And what does that have to do with a legal same sex union, anyway?

“A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don’t confuse our youth and say it’s marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.”

Why not say it’s marriage? And how does that confuse our youth. We shouldn’t teach our youth about the world as we fantasize it to be. We should teach them about the world as it really is. And some people are homosexuals. It’s not a choice (for most of them). It’s the way they’re born.

[zk]

“Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren’t made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?”

Our sex organs don’t “prove” any such thing. Homosexuals do a fine job of pleasing each other just the way they are. And what does that have to do with a legal same sex union, anyway?

“A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don’t confuse our youth and say it’s marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.”

Why not say it’s marriage? And how does that confuse our youth. We shouldn’t teach our youth about the world as we fantasize it to be. We should teach them about the world as it really is. And some people are homosexuals. It’s not a choice (for most of them). It’s the way they’re born.

[zk]

“Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren’t made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?”

Our sex organs don’t “prove” any such thing. Homosexuals do a fine job of pleasing each other just the way they are. And what does that have to do with a legal same sex union, anyway?

“A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don’t confuse our youth and say it’s marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.”

Why not say it’s marriage? And how does that confuse our youth. We shouldn’t teach our youth about the world as we fantasize it to be. We should teach them about the world as it really is. And some people are homosexuals. It’s not a choice (for most of them). It’s the way they’re born.

[zk]

“Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren’t made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?”

Our sex organs don’t “prove” any such thing. Homosexuals do a fine job of pleasing each other just the way they are. And what does that have to do with a legal same sex union, anyway?

“A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don’t confuse our youth and say it’s marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.”

Why not say it’s marriage? And how does that confuse our youth. We shouldn’t teach our youth about the world as we fantasize it to be. We should teach them about the world as it really is. And some people are homosexuals. It’s not a choice (for most of them). It’s the way they’re born.

[zk]

“Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren’t made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?”

Our sex organs don’t “prove” any such thing. Homosexuals do a fine job of pleasing each other just the way they are. And what does that have to do with a legal same sex union, anyway?

“A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don’t confuse our youth and say it’s marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.”

Why not say it’s marriage? And how does that confuse our youth. We shouldn’t teach our youth about the world as we fantasize it to be. We should teach them about the world as it really is. And some people are homosexuals. It’s not a choice (for most of them). It’s the way they’re born.

[meadandale]

“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

[meadandale]

“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

[meadandale]

“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

[meadandale]

“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

[meadandale]

“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want.

[Author]

Posts