No one has hit on the real irony in Melissa’s threat. The tax system, especially under a Marxist Obama administration, will be used for social engineering purposes, and a gay leftie, who will benefit from that, is refusing to participate. Very ironic.

BB: Don’t forget the fabric of interlocking family relationships that don’t happen with so-called “gay marriage”.

Rob,

How about if I move to Minot and hang out my shingle as a Private Investigator, would that be okay with you?

What — you say I’m unlicensed and unqualified? Well who are you or anyone else to define what a “private investigator” is? I pay my taxes like anyone else, so I demand my right to a PI license.

So what if i don’t qualify according to YOUR rules! I don’t have to — this is a civil rights issue!

…

As you can see, the meaning of “Private Investigator” loses something, if you give in to my demands. The licensing requirements are surely there for a good reason — whether _I_ can see them or not.

Man: The promiscuity of male homosexuals is well documented.

Rob: This is really a squabble over the requirements for marriage; the tiny minority wants to force its requirements on the rest of us. What other requirements will be changed?

Why else would you care so much?

Because you’re attacking normal society and culture for the sake of your selfish desires. You are attacking a lot of people, those who voted down your takeover attempt.
Your twisted attempt to project your perversion on others is typical of your deranged thinking.

OK, you 2.
You’re acting as if you’re married!
My comment was only in jest.
I’ve read several studies that showed that homosexual couples were the same or more monogamous than heterosexual couples.
Personally, I Have no idea so I take the results of the studies.

FHJR: Also, if it’s a lifestyle choice then are you saying you could choose to
become attracted to another man?

I know I could. I know many beautiful men and many beautiful women — whether or not I find them attractive doesn’t depend on their plumbing system. That said, I choose to not even entertain the thought of being attracted to any man.

Why would anyone in their right mind choose a lifestyle that is so unaccepted?

The reasons are many, and easy to imagine. Open your mind just a tad, son.

I know I very nearly chose to be gay, primarily for the social acceptance it would have afforded me (being an outcast anyway, what better way to fit in than by joining a band of misfits). Not to mention all the great sex my gay friends were having… I would never have to endure a lonely night again.

But in the end, I chose to be straight and never looked back. But I could have chosen otherwise, and could change my mind anytime. All it takes is an open mind.

Lest we forget how what has always been considered deviant was somehow deemed to suddenly be normal.

Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

BY RYAN SORBA

Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year 1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago–in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far–a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!‘” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

So if enough of the insane act aggressively enough, they can intimidate the scientific community to declaring them normal.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

Thank you, Robert, for standing up for the sanctity and universal role of marriage — being between a man and a woman. Since the beginning of time marriage has been between man and woman, and there is a reason for that. First of all, one of the first commandments God gave Adam & Eve (not Adam & Steve, or Anna & Eve…) was to multiply and replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28). That can only happen between a man and a woman. And that’s the way God made it.

But for those of you who do not believe in the Bible or God, let’s take a look at nature and at history. Living creatures, from plants to animals, all have the innate drive and ability to multiply. And in order to do so you need a male and a female. Not two females; not two males. And throughout history marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. Why try to change that definition now? There is a reason that the definition has stood for thousands of years.

Keep defending the truth, Robert.

You could have explained exactly why you hold your
opinion, but you have chosen not to.

I have done it repeatedly, but you are either too dishonest to admit it, too stupid to comprehend it, or simply trolling for responses to feed your narcissism. Either way, you failed your schooling.

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

Wrong! The Constitution protects us from the tyranny of big govt, and from those who would violate the will of the citizens by legislating through the courts, as you would do to force the abomination you call “gay marriage” on us. The people have spoken, but you tyrannical leftie totalitarians don’t want to listen.

http://www.luoamerican.com/baldilocks/2008/10/the-twisting.html

Oh, here’s a link for the parable I posted.

Just because you define marriage a certain way doesn’t mean that definition is universally accepted by everyone.

The Twisting

Another One-Act Play

******

He: The sky is blue.
She: No it’s not, it’s plaid.

He: Why are you saying that?
She: Because that the way I see it.

He: But it is the color that has been historically called blue.
She: I don’t see it that way.

He: (stops passing man and points at the sky) What color is that?
Man: Blue. (Man goes on his way.)

He: (stops another passing man and points at the sky) Welche Farbe is das?
Man 2: Blau. (Man goes on his way.)

He: (stops a woman and points at the sky) ¿De qué color es que?
Woman: Azul. (Woman goes on her way.)

He: See? Everyone sees blue up there.
She: But it’s not blue, it’s plaid.

He: No it’s not–it’s blue!
She: I have a right to say it’s plaid! Are you trying to infringe upon my rights?

He: What? This conversation doesn’t have anything to do with your r–
She: I see. I’ve hurt your feelings. You simply feel that the sky is blue. Well, I can’t do anything about your feelings. The sky is plaid and that’s that.

He: (pauses with jaw-dropped) Rights and feelings? The color of the sky is objectively blue! Plaid is not a single color! It’s a–
She: I’ll come back when you’ve calmed down. (walks away)

Good luck with that Dave.

Funny though, how I’d never heard that argument until the whole idea of gay marriage came up. I dont think we need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

A follower? No, I just doubt that you will do as you suggest others should.

I must say, the quality of discourse in this country has taken a sharp plunge of late, not only among the ruffians and ne’er-do-wells from whom one expects coarse speech, but among gentlemen of letters and esteem. I have, with my own ears, several times in the past week, heard the elder sons of prominent families introduce into mixed company subjects formerly reserved for private discussion among gentlemen. It pains me even to raise this point, but following a string of recent events, there is no question that the adage bears repeating: A gentleman ought never to disclose who sucked him off.

This needn’t mean a gentleman must limit the discussion of his exploits to his journal. If a gentleman has met a young lady and taken her to his digs, it is his right and privilege to tell his friends and coworkers about the encounter. However, it is the mark of a true gentleman to omit his lady friend’s name from the discussion of her pussy’s tightness.

Why, I had assumed that this custom and others like it were universal and well understood, but as long as I am spelling out the Rules of the Gentleman, allow me to introduce several other equally important but oft-neglected guidelines.

Should a gentleman find himself alone with a lady, he should not simply undo his pants and come in her hole. A gentleman knows that it is good manners to coax his lady friend’s heels as far above her head as they will go, to “split the reed,” and perhaps to turn his lady over and give it to her “doggy style.” A gentleman knows that a true lady enjoys a moderate amount of hair-pulling and ass-grabbing, taking these attentions as marks of affection and virility. However, a gentleman knows where to draw the line. He never lodges his lady friend’s head between the couch cushions.

A gentleman occasionally will have more than one guest at his home. Should he see that jealousy is breeding between the two ladies whom he is hosting, a gentleman does not say, “Whoa, ladies, there’s enough of me to go around!” The gentleman, valuing decorum and discretion above all else in his paramours, gently guides his guests’ heads from his penis and informs them that if they do not act like ladies, he will have to ask them both to leave.

When up to his nuts in a lady’s guts, a gentleman knows that it is quite impolite to smoke, talk politics, or take phone calls. Should his cell phone ring, the gentleman says, “Excuse me, I need to take this.” He withdraws his penis from his lady friend and keeps his phone conversation brief. When he has completed his call, a gentleman gently reinserts his dick into his lady.

Of course, a gentleman who is not a smoker keeps an ashtray on his balcony for his lady friends who wish to smoke.

It should go without saying that, once he has arranged for a paid lady of the night to meet him at his home, a gentleman does not jerk off several times while awaiting her arrival, in order to “get his money’s worth.”

A gentleman knows that accidents happen. While it is an unfortunate and boorish behavior that should be kept to a minimum, a gentleman always apologizes to a lady after he mistakenly shoots his load inside of her.

A gentleman never comes in a lady’s eyes.

While he knows that a lady gets pleasure out of pleasuring him, and he will occasionally increase the intensity of that pleasure by gentle force, a gentleman will never choke a woman on his cock.

If a gentleman wishes to attend to a lady’s pleasure through oral manipulation, no matter what the state of affairs below, he always politely completes his task. A gentleman ought never to fan his hand in the air, grimace and make a show of removing a pubic hair from his teeth, or compare his lady friend’s vulva to two strips of partially grilled fajita meat.

A gentleman knows that it is considered good manners to have an unopened toothbrush on hand for his lady friend, in the event that she should like to freshen up after eating his ass.

Breeding needn’t amount to priggishness. On the contrary, a gentleman knows that good old-fashioned manners will likely increase his social engagements, once word gets out that he is not one to splooge and tell. But I beg the reader, for the sake of tradition and all that is decent, to remember that a true gentleman does not ever, under any circumstances, go ass to mouth.

from The Onion

Nonsense. Removing the State’s authoritiy to further restrict our private lives is the antithesis of totalitarianism. You’re just hurling about “Big Sounding” words… and your misuse of them is becoming a bore. And AGAIN you repeat the falsehood that I attempt to use the courts to force “something” upon you when in fact I attempt to remove this very authority from the courts posession so that it can NEVER be used to force something upon you… Like Gay marriage. You trust the courts will perpetually uphold your hetero point of view. I do not trust the courts to do anything in perpetuity… therefore the superior position is to not grant the courts this authority in the first place. The courts cannot misuse what they do not possess. The issue is then forever settled and you get to keep your hetero marriage definition. Got it now?

Sorry guys, my use of the term “Homophobe” is NOT intended to cut off debate or insult in any way. It is simply an accurate description gleaned from your own words. Its not my fault if you are offended by it. If it is what you are, then please don’t hide it, be honest with yourself and proud about it. You have every right to be homophobic if that’s your lifestyle choice. Neiman, you overstreatch by suggesting that I may be a Cristophobe. My religion is, like my relationships, an entirely private matter. I have the personal confidence in, and need not publically “witness” as the evangelicals say, to glean reinforcement of my faith. Or my spousal committments. When it comes to matters of State Governance, I am absolutely Ambivalent with regards to faiths of choice. Christianity or ANY faith has NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. To invoke faith, or personal phobeas, in Civil discourse is to relinquish any meaningful or logical standing you may have had in the argument. I am actually trying to help you homophobes out here. You want to preserve the hetero definition of “Marriage.” Fine. STRATEGICALLY, YOU WILL LOSE THIS CIVIL BATTLE BY PERSUING THIS “TWO CITIZEN CLASS” COURSE OF ACTION. You can WIN this battle by removing the authority of the State to Define it FOR YOU. Then, YOU get to Define it. Your Christian Church also gets to define it. But the Government, which ultimately must side with Civil Rights, DOES NOT GET TO DEFINE IT. YOU then WIN. Q.E.D.

Sparkie,
Once again you show that you lack the capability to understand “the law of unintentional circumstances”.

If it’s alright to define marriage to be inclusive for one special interest group, based on the premise that it is their “right”, this will be the grounds for all other special interest group. Equal protection under the law, as it were……

FOOL!

Kenny: Don’t you find it interesting that in all the comments on this thread, not one contains an affirmative argument for changing the definition of marriage to pander to their selfish little minority pressure group? It’s all about coercion; they have no case.

The First Amendment forbids govt from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, so if religious people don’t want to recognize homosexuality or homosexual unions as normal, they have the freedom to do that. If you homosexuals want acceptance, you have to work for it, not keep trying to coerce people to do what they choose not to do.

your argument is worse than shitty. Unsupported statement. it warrants no response. If it’s so “shitty”, then you should be able to easily refute it. Maybe you can’t.

I think you were wise to run away from me, Sparkie.

What’s your argument, Sparkie? What’s your version of how changing the requirements for marriage to suit a small, selfish pressure group will affect society? What’s your version of what the “rights” argument will do to marriage?
Still sniping.

Do tell us what this “subversive agenda” is and how it is advantageous to anyone other than those who wish to show love for each other.

The love you are speaking about is Eros, sexual lust and that is hardly the basis for a good marriage or a stable, emotionally healthy family.

What is the disadvantage? If they choose this lifestyle, they will cause eternal spiritual harm to themselves and others, that is from a Chistian, even a Muslim point of view. For the state, it destroys heterosexual marriage, in that in those countries approving of homosexual marriage all marriages fall off drastically and strongly in the direction of no marriages at all eventually. This then destroys a core, a vital element of any prosperous and srong society; that being, stable families and a respect for fidelity within marriage, which are necessary elements for a healthy society.

There is no civil right to be married, it is a privilege granted by the state, not unlike a Driver’s License, in that, there are certain minimal qualifications required. Homosexuals do not meet those requirements because they cannot procreate.

Here is what the Supreme Court said in 2000 in the case of Troxel v. Granville:

“Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course.”

Thus, you can see that parental rights are based on “western civilization concepts of the family.”

When those concepts are no longer the legal definition of the family in this nation, then the foundation upon which parental rights are based is completely removed. [Which is a liberal goal, as they want every child to be wards of the State]

In a world which widely embraces the notions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is fanciful to believe that any other theory will arise to replace the traditions of western civilization as a basis for parental rights.

Until the government decided to grant special incentives for marriage; births, death and marriage (Matters of life & death) were almost exclusively under the dominion of the Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etcetera), they administered and documented these events and do so today, with the state also maintaining such records and exercising authority over these natural, spiritual human events. That latter fact notwithstanding, marriage is a holy sacrament of the Church and any other legal relationships between human beings are a matter for the state, such as civil unions.

Yet, homosexuals want to demand the right to marriage. Why? Because they know in their hearts that homosexuality is viewed as being immoral and against the laws of God and therefore they feel a genuine sense of guilt. So, they hope somehow to deal with their guilt, their inner turmoil by forcing the Church to accept homosexual unions and they are convinced that if corrupt men in the Church approve it, it will force God to approve of their perverse sexual activity, which is, of course, nonsense, to think man can force God to do anything against His will.

Lastly, homosexuals really do not want the confines of marriage, as homosexuality is by nature mostly incredibly promiscuous, the average gay man often having hundreds of sexual partners over a lifetime. There simply is no natural fidelity to the homosexual lifestyle. So, as some activists have admitted, they want to destroy the very institution of marriage, preferring some new legal definition of relationships that allows for many semi-permanent partners over a lifetime.

All that being said, despite it being the will of the people not to permit homosexual marriage, any and all laws passed to insure that marriage as being only and always between one man to one woman, will be overturned in the near future. Why? Homosexuals have the money and therefore the political power to overrule the people.

RT: Your original comment was about soldiers, not married people; letting lefties change the subject is always a mistake.
Your original statement made a lot of sense. BTW, “vagitarian” is one of my favorite terms, as well.

You’re not going to win many points by saying that the people around here compare to the National Socialists.

One of the innumerable differences between the Nazis (as you lovingly call “National Socialist”) and the Democrats/Liberals in the US is that the Nazis espoused a culture of exclusivity, that is, they wanted to shut out others from all chances of equality or human rights; they wanted a closed society. Dems/Libs are inclined to inclusively, that is, to give as many people as possible a chance at liberty and happiness; we want an open society.

Now which doctrine do you Reich-Wingers practice?

People just don’t like people that are different from them.

This is called projection. Look chum, your name is “banheterosexualmarriage” so don’t preach tolerance.

I will fight any law to make homosexual sex a crime. When it comes to forcing people to validate your marriage…well I’ll side with them.

You have a right to live your life. You don’t have a right to Neiman’s acceptance. And that’s what this fight is about. Anymore than he has a right to you not thinking he’s a bigot. Aren’t opinions wonderful?

Sorry Robert, I don’t have it wrong. Nice try, though. Gays ARE NOT attempting anything so esoteric as a “Redefinition.” They simply want to be treated as equals in all ways.

Gays ARE demanding a redefinition. Sorry.

You’re just simply lying.

Calling normal people “homophobes” won’t get you anywhere, Dave. We know better. Stop trying to force your homo stuff on the rest of us through the courts. Do it in private, like decent people do. Make your own committed relationship, and stop trying to hijack marriage for your own selfish purposes.

“Gay not equal”, are you so unsure of your own sexuality that you can’t give equality to others?

The Constitution guarantees you equality of opportunity.
You have the opportunity to establish your own version of committed relationship, and to call it whatever you want, except for “marriage”, since that is already taken. Stop whining and get to work!

Calling me a sniper and a troll…

Which is the truth. You admitted you came on this thread just to make trouble and draw attention to yourself, since you don’t agree with either side. You have no interest in furthering either argument, so why are you here? Is there any constructive reason for you to spew your bile on this thread?
You contribute nothing to this discussion.
BTW, it’s not “over a word”, it’s over a definition of an institution that comprises the very fabric of human society.
Are you too stupid to understand that?

It combines the male and female, which affirms the balance of the universe.

Did the universe tell you this?

It also satisfies the biological imperative.

By that interpretation you can say that couples who share love for one another but lack the ability to procreate cannot get married. What about married couples who have reproductive issues of sterility? Should they not be married?

real marriage is something different

As I have told likwidshoe, I am not a mind reader.
What is the specific thing that defines “real marriage”?

Sparkie Arbuckle – No, I just admitted this this whole fight is over a name–over jack shit.

Lose the language, lose the institution.

Are you really wondering why people are on this issue? People don’t want to lose the institution. The much derided Christians (as if they’re the only ones who want marriage to survive intact) and most of the gays who wish for marriage to be redefined understand this point.

It’s not the word, it’s the concept the word encompasses.

What, if I’m not pro-you or pro-them then my
thoughts on this debate are meaningless?

Yes. Even a blind squirrel…

robert, you really are broken record. When you resort to name calling instead of facts & logic, you acknowledge that you cannot further support your position and relinquish it in defeat. I’m not a gay activist, already established that, not a leftie, already established that, and you are right, marriage is not a civil right… until you make it one by establishing governmental authority to regulate it which will do just that. Dont put Marriage in the care of your Government, and you’ll NEVER have to worry about some activist group trying to change it. Do this and we’ll “sail along” for many more thousands of years of real marriage. Trust it to the courts and sooner or later your covetted definition will be lost. I’m beginning to think your primary interest actually lies in maintaining some kind of official hetero “exclusivity clause” of some type, rather than maintaining traditional Marriage. You don’t need Government to maintain traditional Marriage. You can do that already all by yourself.

I’m not a gay activist, already established that, not a leftie, already established that, and you are right, marriage is not a civil right… until you make it one by establishing
governmental authority to regulate it which will do just that.

Since you are an activist for the hijacking of marriage by the gay pressure groups, you are a gay activist, whatever you claim about what you are. Since you have made a number of inaccurate statements already here, I doubt your credibility.
Nevertheless, you have it backwards; there was no need for us to run anything through the courts or the electorate until the gays started trying to hijack the requirments for marriage to fit their subversive agenda. The appropriate response has been to put it to the electorate(the way we do things in the US), and everywhere that has been done, the people have responded by supporting real marriage. Again, if you guys want to do the work to establish your own special committed relationship, and go through the process to get the govt to recognize it, more power to you. We won’t let you piggyback on what we have done; you need to do your own work, here.

Sparkie: After sweeping away all your narcissistic bullshit, it seems you have no side in this argument, right? Why are you here, then? You have just admitted to being a sniper and a troll. Not that we didn’t already know that, of course.

…they wanted to shut out others from all chances of equality or human rights…

Just like the Dems of today.

robert you bore me. You’re so easy. “Since you are an activist for the hijacking of marriage by the gay pressure groups, you are a gay activist, whatever you claim about what you are.”

Do you see how silly you sound? Insisting on obvious falsehoods when you lose debates? OK robert, If it makes you feel more manly, go ahead and call me whatever names you like. I place your name calling in the same place I place the Government’s “Official validation” of marriage: in the IRRELEVANT CAN.
And I maintain my superior position of keeping the government out of the marriage business so that the courts can NEVER change the traditional definition of marriage. HOW you manage to conclude that this is gay activism is between you and your homophobes. Maybe you have this gay thing on your mind all the time and that’s all you can think up to say? IF name calling is all you’ve got left, then I’ll leave you to ponder your easy defeat. IF by chance you can muster up an original thought that does not involve the droned repetition of made up falsehoods about my opinion, then I’ll be happy to intellectualize with you more. But I think you need a bit more practice.

…they wanted to shut out others from all chances of equality or human rights…

Just like the Dems of today.

Someone like you would think that as you resist the idea of power being redistributed away from those demographics who have traditionally held positions of power, otherwise known as the “white, Christian, male power structure” as Billy O’Really had succinctly said.

If “Gay” marriage is allowed, then why not bigamy?

The same rules would apply…..

just a thought….

Fundamentalists and Conservatives fear the breakdown of the traditional white, Christian, male, power structure in the United States. It is a good thing people the ones we find here are not the mandate here in the US. We can now rightfully ignore them as the lunatic fringe now that their lord & savior Bush is leaving office.

Your ability to interpret simple facts is obviously lacking.

Your inability to notice holes in your own logic is striking.

“Gay not equal”, are you so unsure of your own sexuality that you can’t give equality to others? Christian Responsibility is a song that all gays should use as their national anthem and take to the streets in protest.

Kenny: I only asserted that there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, and Man went off on his trannie tangent.

I was responding to him. I just didn’t care enough to take your name out of it. However, his study is bullshit and doesn’t back up it’s conclusion with fact.

That seems like a silly argument to me. Just because you define marriage a certain way doesn’t mean that definition is universally accepted by everyone.

It doesn’t have to be universally accepted. It’s accepted by a vast majority.

Robert, you have done nothing of the sort. My statement stands. Promiscuity is well documented regardless of the sexual orientation and for homosexuals is no more frequent than for heterosexuals. A good summary of several studies is found here.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HealthHosx2.htm

The only qualifications for marriage are that you are of opposite sex (or not), old enough, not related and not already married.

So why would we discriminate against related marriages? Or 16 year olds? You have no case.

What gays do isn’t “marriage”, no matter how much you lie about it.

And though Sparkie, Man Train, and abolishheterosexualmarriage don’t mean to, they tip their hand. This has nothing to do with equal rights, fairness, or human decency. It’s about a fuck you to Christians, and, in Sparkies case, a fuck you to gays as well.

How sad when you base your worldview off of pissing people off.

You could have explained exactly why you hold your
opinion, but you have chosen not to.

You lie; I have explained it many times, but you want to play the childish game of pretending I didn’t, since I didn’t explain it the way you wanted. In other words, I don’t agree with you. It’s not my job to cater to you; I say my truth, and you either accept it or not. Be honest; have some integrity. I gave you my explanation, many times; you just don’t like it; that’s your problem, not mine.
The people have spoken; you lost.

MBA_Dave:
Homophobia is an emotionally charged term designed to cut off all debate, like its dirty little cousin racism. I could just as easily and accurately call you Christophobic and Alutheophobic; the first being an irrational fear of Christ and the Church and the latter being an irrational fear of Divine Truth. Now, did that advance the debate any?

The flaw in your first rambling paragraph is that homosexuals do enjoy full Civil Rights as citizens and in fact, due to gay political activism, money and fear mongering, they have been able to gain special rights above that of heterosexual people, including unConstitutional Hate Crimes Laws, as the latter is to criminalyze thoughts.

Marriage is not a civil right! There is nothing in human history to suggest that two people of the same gender have any rights to marriage, family or even a place in decent society, although in most of the West they have gained acceptance in society, which is to the harm of society.

My comments on November 8, 2008 at 09:59 answer all your silly assertions in your second paragraph. You don’t need to be married at all to cohabitate or even to share contractually in your mutual assets or for other matters. Marriage has, is and remains a Holy Sacrament of the Church; or if you are not married in a Church, you have nothing more or less than a civil union, not a marriage at all. If you choose neither course, you are free to commit to one another any way you like, for as long or as short a time as you like.

So, every charge you made was false, made up to further your argument, but having nothing to do with the facts of this matter.

MT I did hear this solution fronted by I think Civil Liberatarians. It is a slight improvement, In that it removes the religion variable from the civil equation, while still allowing those who feel they need it, some Official Government Condesention of their relationship… and all the rights & favors that go with that, like riding on health insurance, etc. But it still grants the State the authority to determine what groups are allowed to get “Unioned.” I have a basic instinct to avoid vesting governments with authorities that are not apparantly necessary.

robert108,

We were trying to establish what defines a “real marriage.” You out started by saying,

“It combines the male and female, which affirms the balance of the universe.” I asked if you how you know this and you ignore me.

You also said, “It also satisfies the biological imperative.” I showed you a counter-example and you call me stupid.

I don’t want to just know what your opinions are, I want to know (and want YOU to know) why you believe your opinions are true.

I don’t know where to start… How can you claim to know “the truth” if you are unwilling to explore your reasoning, if any at all? Your intellectual laziness is embarrassing.

What gives you the impression that you are qualified to judge me in any way? You have yet to give your “reasoning”, btw, marking you as a sniping troll.
Good luck with that.

Get a life and a clue. I’m done wasting my breath on you. It’s between God and you.

Dave: You have it backwards. The State is not trying to regulate relationships; the gay activists are trying to use the State to force a redefinition of marriage on the vast majority of citizens, which runs counter to our Constitution and founding principles. What you gay activists want to do is antiAmerican.

Sorry, you guys sound like a Homophobes Gone Wild video. And I’m telling you that YOU ARE ALL SHOOTING YOURSEVES IN THE FOOT with this issue. You are allowing your homophobia to cloud whatever clear thought processes you may still possess. If you actually examined both my comments & the issue at hand, and you examine them in an intelligent, unbiased mannar, as a strict Constitutional Constructionist & Liberatarian would, without preconceived predjudice of any kind, you would come to the conclusion as I have that, that vesting the government with authorities to Officially Declare the harmless private lifestyles of a certain group of Citizens in good standing, being consenting Adults above the age of majority, as “Officially Appropriate”, and allowing ANY benifits & favors, whatever their economic value, both public & private, to vest unto this group as result of their “Officially Government Approved” Status, and actively deny, through the power of the law, these identical benifits & favors to “Unapproved” groups, is Paramount to the State’s creation & enforcement of two classes of Citizens, one “Appropriate & Officially Favored,” and one “Inappropriate & denied.” I am telling you homophobes and ALL my fellow citizens that YOU WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE THIS ARGUMENT IN ANY CIVIL RIGHTS COURT. And with it goes your official marriage “Definition.” And you will have caused its destruction YOURSELVES by pushing this two citizen class point of view. The BEST COURSE OF ACTION from a “Hetero Marriage Preservationist” point of view, is to recind the State’s authority to Grant Official Approval to relationships, and leave these authorities where they belong: with the individual, and with Religious Institutions of chioce.

Now I’ll ask you Married Male Homophobes a question. I don’t wear a wedding band. I consider my marriage as the private business of me & my spouse and NOBODY else’s. Including the State. I need NO APPROVAL from ANYONE to “add validity” to my eternal committment to my spouse. So when you first realized that you actually loved the woman you eventually married, and you decided to ask her to Marry, you probably already knew she would agree and wanted to Marry also… Did the two of you actually need an uninvolved third party to stick their nose into your private business with this woman to Officially Declare your relationship “Government Approved?” What, Like were you unsure of your own decision and you needed Big government to stand there and nod at you and pat you on your back or something? When you made up your mind to remain with this woman throuout eternity and have your babies together, Was this then, and is it now, ANY OF THE GOVERNMENT’s BUSINESS? The only reason it is any of the government’s business is because we have STOOPIDLY allowed our government to stick their nose into our private lives and make unnecessary laws regulating our private lives. This is NOT the Government’s job and we should get them the @$#& out of our private lives.

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. (IS THIS WHAT SCARES YOU?)

Studies by pro-homosexual groups supporting homosexual parenting. Well, I for one am shocked, stunned and amazed by such bias. Get freaking real, these studies are meaningless crap produced by people with a Leftist Agenda. How do you design a fair, unbiased, objecvtive measuerment of parenting skills? You cannot, it is all subjective and based on liberal ideals.

Shame on you to claim to know what my god has in store for me. How big is your ego –to think you know this?

In a way you are right, we don’t know if God will at some point before your death save your soul and cause to to reject your homosexual desires. I hope and pray He will! But, as to His condemnation of homosexuality, it is not someone here speaking, it is Almighty God through Holy Scripture that condemns your lifestyle choice. Don’t get mad at the messenger for telling you the truth.

The balance of your comments were not worth the time reading!

Man Train: Your last commente were mindless, bigoted, and based on your own gross ignorance of Christ and the Church.

Let me ask you this hypothetical: If a person lived in the country and near his driveway was a blind bend in the road, there were no warning signs, but if a person went around the curve to fast they would be forced off a cliff to their death. Is it an act of love to warn each motorist of the dangers to their lives or should they avoid mucking around in the business of others and remain silent, allowing them to go to their deaths without any hope? I would suggest it is an act of love to warn them of the danger ahead, just like a Christian, whether you agree with their beliefs or not, by an act of love are warning sinners of the eternal danger of death if they don’t change their course. You may not like being warned, but it is an act of love to warn you anyway.

“Gay not equal”, are you so unsure of your own sexuality that you can’t give equality to others?

Homosexuals are perfectly equal with all other citizens in America, but they are not granted the right to do something that they are not qualified to do, which is get married. We have minimal qualifications for a Driver’s License or we deny people that license if they don’t qualify. Is that treating unqualified drivers unequally? No! The same with homosexuals, they do not qualify for “marriage” and are thus denied a marraige license. They are treated equal in this case, because like others unqualified for marraige they do not qualify for equal accces to marriage.

Shame on you to claim to know what my god has in store for me. How big is your ego –to think you know this?
I think the truth is that homosexuality must exist in you and you are terrified of that. Why else would you care so much? Why else would this be so threatening to you. And those that think this threatens marriage or families ought really take a deeper look at what that threat really is. Certainly isn’t gays threatening the sanctity of marriage. That’s just humorous. People just don’t like people that are different from them. What is considered to be normal also changes over time. The things that happen in our society today would never have been considered normal 100 years ago. The fact that Prop. No. 8 even made the ballots in the first place and the fact that there is even a blog about this is victorious and shows that not everyone is ignorant. You see the more and more people stop to INDEPENDENTLY think about it the more they realize that there is a difference between doing things the “right” way someone elses defined way vs. doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.
I also know many gay couples that are married and have much happier families then many straight families. Your comment saying “The “benefits” to real married couples are a recognition of their contribution to the overall health and structure of human society. ” is just a display of your ignorance. And guess what else?– lesbians don’t need technology to have a baby. We adopt your abused children and take your donated sperm.

From the American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html

Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents

Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys & van Hall, 1997; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Victor & Fish, 1995). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2001; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971). Similarly, lesbians’ romantic and sexual relationships with other women have not been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Bos et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1998b; Pagelow, 1980). Lesbian couples who are parenting together have most often been found to divide household and family labor relatively evenly and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, et al., 1998a; Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Hand, 1991; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a; Sullivan, 1996; Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Research on gay fathers likewise suggests that they are likely to divide the work involved in child care relatively evenly and that they are happy with their couple relationships (Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993).

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. (IS THIS WHAT SCARES YOU?)
For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples’ parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning (Johnson & O’Connor, 2002). Certainly, research has found no reasons to believe lesbian mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto, 2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990; Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003, 2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Victor & Fish, 1995; Weston, 1991). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive home environments for children.

I heard an interesting solution the other day to this problem. Legally make all marriages civil unions and let the religious decide what constitutes a marriage. It would be a win-win-win situation. Gay couples could get married, religion stays out of government and government stays out of religion.

Yet when a state offers this option, the first people to complain are the gay community. This is basically the solution we have today in many MANY states. INCLUDING California. All the benefits, all the goodies, just not the name. They said pass.

If society cannot define what marriage is, then marriage is essentially dead as a public institution. Gays get an exemption, though, because you say so? Pass.

rather, “not a big thing”

One sniper admires another.

WTF does bigamy have to do with this…?

Once you can change the historical requirements for something, for selfish purposes, where does it end? Especially if you incorrectly assert that it’s a “right”. If it’s really a “right”, then everybody gets to do it. Single people can be “married”, children can be “married”, brothers/sisters, mothers/sons, fathers/daughters, first cousins, etc. It’s a “right”, so everyone has that “right”.

How can you exclude bigamists and zoophiles? After all, it’s a “right”.
You’re not such a good thinker, Sparkie. It’s hard for you to draw obvious conclusions, apparently.

Sorry Melissa, YOU DONT GET IT. Many of my fellow Citizens voted AGAINST granting the Government additional authorities to “Officially Sanction” specific types of Human relationships, BECAUSE OUR HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS!!!! Our relationships, WHO we choose to relate with, HOW we choose to relate with them, WHY we choose to relate with each other, IS OUR OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Government should GET OUT of the Marriage business altogether. EVERY Marriage is exclusively a private matter between the people involved. The Government HAS NO RIGHT to even know WHO we are married to. Its NOT their business. EVERY ASPECT of “Marriage” can be handled RIGHT NOW by civil agreements. “Marriage” per se is a RELIGIOUS Matter… and government should stay out of Religious matters, NOT USURP THEM!!! I would much rather recind the authority of the Government to “Officially Approve” of Hetero Relationships via the Civil Marriage Process than grant additional powers to the government to begin picking and choosing additional groups they deem “Appropriate.”

Marty, that is a crap analogy!

The only qualifications for marriage are that you are of opposite sex (or not), old enough, not related and not already married.

The qualifications for a PI have to be studied for. Try an analogy wherein one doesn’t have to have learned a skill or two.

You go uh… girl, my wife works at the IRS I’ll get the aftermath report from her.

That will be a neat trick, considering Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court has no legal authority to overturn an amendment to the State Constitution.

Since when does the court recognize boundries?

They will rule it unconstitutional…and if Arnold is worth his salt…hell ignore them.

And I’l be happy to see the happy couple in jail.

But wouldn’t sending a vagitarian to the women’s prison be like sending a kid to the candy store?

Incidentally, you have yet to give any response to what I have said, other than try to act superior, while having nothing going besides personal attack. Try facts and logic, if you can.

Man Train – …as you lovingly call…

You’ve said at least a couple of times in the last week that you can not mind read.

Dems/Libs are inclined to inclusively, that is, to give as many people as possible a chance at liberty and happiness; we want an open society.

Oh! So that’s why you want the government to decide what is “fair” when it comes to political speech. “Inclusively” and all that jazz.

Take a break, Trainwreck. You’re losing it.

MBA_Dave – I’m sorry to see that you all seem bound and determined to continue with this gay conspiracy theory about redefining marraige.

Way to advance the hysterics, pal. It’s not a “gay conspiracy theory”, it’s just the truth. Changing the definition to mean a man and a woman, man and a man, and a woman and a woman is changing the definition.

Man Train – As I have told likwidshoe, I am not a mind reader.

He says this, but he engages in it all of the time.

Weird.

MBA_Dave,

I heard an interesting solution the other day to this problem. Legally make all marriages civil unions and let the religious decide what constitutes a marriage. It would be a win-win-win situation. Gay couples could get married, religion stays out of government and government stays out of religion.

I like you banheterosexualmarriage. Thanks for banging your head against this wall. It probably did more good than you know.

Live on, you are a good person and citizen!

Thank you for your positive contributions to our society!

The so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, which eliminates diversity of opinion; so-called “Affirmative Action”, which mandates racial quotas in hiring; school busing, which eliminates school choice; and the so-called “Employee Freedom Act”, which deprives workers of the secret ballot, so they can be intimidated and fired for their choice to resist criminal unionization. Just for starters.

What a loon!

Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen.

Of course you are! You are both allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, same as any other citizen.

Whether or not you WANT to, is your own business. But you certainly have the right. Same as me.

Hey Melissa if you don’t like it get the hell out of California and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. The people of California have spoken and they say that marriage is between a man and a woman not a woman and woman or a man and a man or whatever. The people have spoken not a select group of knee jerk liberal judges so deal with it.

Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now.

How about a “Sexual Deviant”?
No insult intended.
To deviate from the norm, is deviant behavior.
The normal sexual relationship, is not same-sex.
You deviate. Therefore, you’re Sexually Deviant.

It’s normal for a reason. So humans can have kids!!
To advance the species into the future!.. Hello!!..
Or. As some would say; As God intended.

Live and let live. Buy houses and stuff. Enter contracts.
Do what you want behind closed doors.
But. Don’t indoctrinate our children towards Deviance.

You lie Robert. Ain’t the tinternet grand?

SAB 2/28/06

SAB 10/27/06

You also have on:
Newsbusters

Kenny: I only asserted that there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, and Man went off on his trannie tangent.

Oops, here’s the numbers:

The work “supports the notion that transsexualism has a biological basis rather than being due to psychosocial factors in early childhood,” he says. “However the finding does not explain all male-to-female transsexuals, suggesting that multiple genetic factors are involved.”
While the genetic link was statistically significant, it was weak — 55% of the transsexuals had the long version of the gene, compared with 50% of normal men. Harley agrees that many more genes related to male-to-female transsexualism probably remain to be discovered.

Every other guy in the nation “suffers” from this gene, but less than .01% of the population are transsexuals. Nearly half of transsexuals do not display this trait. It’d be like noting that 55% of transsexuals have blue eyes, and saying blue eyes caused transsexualism. This is not science. It’s junk. The scientist himself says it best:

we could speculate that…

You certainly can doc. You’ve done nothing but.

Sorry Robert, I don’t have it wrong. Nice try, though. Gays ARE NOT attempting anything so esoteric as a “Redefinition.” They simply want to be treated as equals in all ways. Its as simple as that, there is no dark conspiracy here. The State grants a “bundle” of rights & benifits upon hetero individuals who choose to have their personal relationship brought public and get it officially “approved of.” These benifits include the rights of private entities, such as insurers & other State Agencies to discriminate against the “Unapproved.” This “Bundle of Rights,” granted by the State upon State Sanctioning of the two-person Hetero relationship is what other groups, most prominantly gays, are clammoring over. They, as equal humans, want to be treated as equals before the law in every way that we are. You can’t blame them for this. So what business does the State have to pick & choose one group of Citizens to grant additional benifits upon and refuse these same benifits to another group? ESPECIALLY when the determining factor is the personal, private relationships between Consenting Adults in good standing with the State? I’m telling you & ALL my Fellow Citizens that to go down this road where the State decides what relationships are “Appropriate” is a civil rights quagmire that will end up with every conceivable whacko group imaginable demanding equality. The BEST course of action is to get the Government OUT of the Marriage business, and let both private individuals and religious Institutions handle these matters themselves. Government should make NO LAW granting publically financed rights & favors upon a privledged class of “Approved” groups.

First of all I am as conservative as they come so don’t pull that leftie bullshit with me. Forcing so-called “gay marriage” on Americans through govt mandates and confiscation of our money to give them “tax breaks” is leftie social policy. I just don’t think the government has any place in social issues like gay marriage. I agree; they shouldn’t have tried to use the courts to force so-called “gay marriage” on a population that doesn’t want it.

Also, if it’s a lifestyle choice then are you saying you could choose to become attracted to another man? I didn’t say that; you did. My statement about it being a lifestyle choice was to address the false statement that gays have no choice in their sexual orientation. There is no evidence of that. Wow, what other magical powers do you possess? So, the ability to think rationally and logically is a “magical power” to you? Why would anyone in their right mind choose a lifestyle that is so unaccepted? Ask them; I don’t understand it, either.Why do people go to any and all extremes to try to change it and are unsuccessful? I know of very little of that, and those who do try have some degree of success. There are also mental illnesses that don’t respond to therapy, like pedophilia. What’s your point? You are clearly just an unintelligent country bumpkin that gives conservatives a bad name and reputation.

None of what you try to attribute to me is true. Why can’t you just make a factual and logical argument? Why the feeble and ignorant attempt at personal invalidation? Do you think that makes you look intelligent? It doesn’t.
I oppose govt social programs, the vast bulk of which are the product of leftie ideology and the Dem Party.
As a self-proclaimed conservative, I would think you would hold the same view.
The only reason voters have had to come into this issue is the constant legalistic attacks on marriage by the gay pressure groups, using the courts to enforce their views.
Action-reaction.

I see no convincing argument as to why two consenting adults shouldn’t be able to enter into a mutually-agreed to social contract.

Do you see a convincing argument why someone couldn’t call a square a circle? That if you teach a dog to sit at a table you shouldn’t call it a human?

The fact is the definition of marriage is what it is. Calling two homosexuals married doesn’t make it so regardless of the legal documentation. She can refer to her lesbian lover however she likes but calling her her wife doesn’t make it true.

The issue is not one of rights. Like I said, they can call themselves anything they want. Like others have said they can get the same benefits without the label. They want us to approve of them. The want to use the power of law to require us to approve of them.

This whole Blog is Quite Queer.
Totaly out of the norm.
Should have an AC/DC sound track.
Your all talking about the “same” thing in “different” ways.
All this Gender-osity.

Spank you all, very much.

Wait! Wait! Wait!

I thought that is was ‘un-American’ to not pay your taxes?

Or at least, isn’t that what the candidate Melissa Etheridge was supporting was telling me to do?

Be careful what/who you vote for. And please, whatever you do, don’t get on the Pres-elect’s bad side. Otherwise you end up like Hillary.

Dang!
She’s got a cutie for a girlfriend!

It’s a lifestyle choice, but it’s always interesting to see how lefties want to avoid taking responsibility for their behavior.

Robert:

First of all I am as conservative as they come so don’t pull that leftie bullshit with me. I just don’t think the government has any place in social issues like gay marriage.

Also, if it’s a lifestyle choice then are you saying you could choose to become attracted to another man? Wow, what other magical powers do you possess? Why would anyone in their right mind choose a lifestyle that is so unaccepted? Why do people go to any and all extremes to try to change it and are unsuccessful? You are clearly just an unintelligent country bumpkin that gives conservatives a bad name and reputation.

Henry David Thoreau would be proud. This would qualify as “civil disobedience.”

However, we’re those that opposed the previous policy holding out on paying taxes before the law was overturned? If not, this is just whining.

I don’t hate you Robert. I love you. Cyber hug?

I’m not concerned with your feelings, Man; only your words. Please make an effort to be truthful and honest in future. That will be sufficient. Try to dial back your personal attacks, and try some facts and logic.

…how long before researchers find a gene for
homosexuality? Not long, I’ll warrant, given the rate at which genetics is moving.

Since I have never spoken about transsexuality on this blog, you’re just lying there. If a homo gene is there, it will undoubtedly be discovered, but it has not yet been discovered(possibly because it’s not there), and that is what I have said. You attack for what was not said. Pathetic.
Your boiling partisan hatred is making you incoherent.

r108
your argument is worse than shitty. it warrants no response. its just ranting and bullshit. i have a feeling you know that — the slippery slope argument can be used effectively, but apparently you are clueless as to how it might be appropriately deployed.

rabid
WTF does bigamy have to do with this, ass?

The fact is the definition of marriage is what it is. Calling two homosexuals married doesn’t make it so regardless of the legal documentation.

That seems like a silly argument to me. Just because you define marriage a certain way doesn’t mean that definition is universally accepted by everyone.

I mean, Obama calls sending people checks in the mail a “tax cut.”

What’s so wrong about letting gays marry? Nobody’s asking you to come to the wedding.

You have no interest in furthering either argument, so why are you here?

To point out that both sides are being f*cking stupid. That’s why I’m here. What, if I’m not pro-you or pro-them then my thoughts on this debate are meaningless? Sorry. I’m done.

Carry on arguing about WHAT TO CALL SOMETHING and pretend that GOD GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU CALL IT or that some moral issue hangs on WHAT YOU CALL IT.

… and call me stupid. Yut.

yet another textbook example of Freudian projection from r108

you will never be accepted, because you don’t accept us

oh, is that why?

heh.

lik,
the institution is legal and religious. the nominal debate i have been picking at it merely what these things are termed on legal documents. no one is telling a certain religion that they can’t call ducks geese or a union a marriage. you know that and you equivocate intentionally to try to slander my position. buck up, princess.

man train
beating up on r108 is really not thing. respond to my comment which you ignored.

Dear loony tunes,
If you pay attention, you’ll note that I am not arguing in favor of gay marriage. Its a hollow, nominalist debate that the gays wage to fuck with the Christians. I do think the Christians deserve to be fucked with, and few things bring me as much glee as having Christians/Victorians fucked with, but I do not think the difference between marriages between spouses and unions between partners is meaningful at all. You guys do. The gays do. I just think you are all acting like asses. Again, feel free to read my comment here.
IMHO, all marriages should be banned unless the religious kooks wish to CALL it that. Everyone should have unions between partners. Let the church issue papers that preserve ancient nominal preferences. This way, the gays and Christians dont get what they want – how perfect. Dragging this dispute about what one call this arcane institution into the legal arena is a waste of everyone’s time, breath, and everything else.