Hello conservative right wingers:

Why do you deny the happiness, that you yourself enjoy, from your fellow citizens? Isn't doing that UN Christianlike???? I think it IS!!!

You are bad and wrong for doing that. Tell my why you're not.

excon

speechlesstx

Please ex, don't answer for me...that was nowhere near my answer. Secondly, the inalienable right the founders determined is the "pursuit" of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness which is what the left seems to think it means. And no, I haven't missed the whole thing, it's just that you guys aren't going to stop until we see it your way and that's no compromise. Now is that your last, last word in this for now?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I spose it is, cause separate but equal, ain't equal. You either have a right, or you don't. There ain't no in between.

excon

speechlesstx

Come on Synnen, please, that's almost as bad as implying I might be a bigot.

I'm not trying to impose my religious beliefs on anyone, I stand for current and historical laws that determine a marriage is between one man and one woman. Trying to force me to accept that a homosexual marriage is equal to a heterosexual marriage, now that's imposing someone else's beliefs on me. I believe my first argument to this was the two types of unions can never be equal so why call them equal? Face it, two gays cannot do everything a man and a woman can do. You can pretend adoption or surrogacy is the same thing, you can pretend one is the husband/dad and the other the wife/mother, you can pretend it's a traditional, natural family but it isn't. If we're offering the next best thing, equal rights and privileges, why do you insist we call it something it isn't? How the heck does that make me prejudiced to offer equal rights and benefits - and even though hour constitution makes no such guarantee? If it did, why is there still a push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment?

And that's exactly what I spoke to, in this day it's a ridiculous suggestion for this country. It's been used as a fear mongering tactic for the past 8 years by the left (something they supposedly don't do) over Bush's alleged plans for a theocracy (with our blessing and encouragement of course). It's stupid, asinine and damned offensive to use that line of "reasoning" toward us. It treats us as if we're some sort of vile, religious ogres that are less than human and does nothing to further a resolution. It's like the Pink Mafia and others out in California, targeting Mormons and every other person that exercised their right to vote their conscience with hateful protests, white powders in the mail, and who knows what other sort of intolerant vile acts. And you expect us to give our blessing to people like that?

It won't hurt me one bit, but certainly the decay in morals brought about largely by the liberal agenda has most definitely had a negative impact on society. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because am not budging any further from the compromise I've offered. If I move toward you I expect reciprocation, not domination.

tomder55

Ex
This was in my first response to this posting .It is still true.

Synnen

If we're looking at historical laws that a marriage is between one man and one woman, I'd like to hear from those cultures where even currently, there is a model for MORE than one woman with one man. Legally, in their societies. Some religions persist in marrying one man to more than one woman RELIGIOUSLY without having the benefit of LEGAL marriage. One man/one woman doesn't fly with me because there are too many examples of polygamy historically and currently for that to even come CLOSE to being an accurate position. And, as I said before, even in the Bible men had more than one wife.

As far as traditional, natural families---seriously? Well, then we'd better outlaw single parents, because THAT isn't traditional, and extended step-families with 3 kids from one marriage and two from another and 1 more from the current union, because THAT isn't exactly traditional, either. And really, while you're at it, let's make divorce illegal when there are kids involved, because having divorced parents that remarry and all that jazz isn't traditional or natural either.

And again comes the stereotype that raising children through adoption or surrogacy isn't natural--gee, thanks for telling me that adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent. I'll be sure to tell that to my daughter's adoptive parents, and make sure to tell my husband that since we're infertile together that we will NEVER have the same natural, traditional family that others have---I mean, it's just not NATURAL or TRADITIONAL to use infertility treatments, or adoption, or surrogacy to have a child. We should just give that dream up, never be parents, and take up mountain climbing because it's just not the same thing as being REAL, traditional, natural parents.

Frankly, I believe I was the first person in this thread to offer a reasonable compromise on the whole situation: NO ONE has a legal religious marriage. The only legal "marriage" is a civil union---for EVERYONE. If you want a religious ceremony, a marriage, then EVERYONE has to find a church willing to marry them.

No one gets the "right" to a religious ceremony, and to keep it equal, then everyone has to go through 2 ceremonies to say they're married. Otherwise they're just civil unionized.

I think that's a pretty fair compromise, honestly.

talaniman

But they can be happy, and enjoy a tax break. Then can get a divorce just like any body else.

I know a guy who even had his wifes baby.
The world is changing, and you can fight if you want, and not compromise at all.

That wont stop people from doing what they want. Maybe not in California, but they can in Connecticut.

speechlesstx

I believe the compromise we offered makes that all possible.

Doctors can do lots of things now, but like I said, you can call something anything you want but it doesn't make it so.

Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.

— Aldous Huxley

speechlesstx

I thought we were discussing the situation in the US, which historically and traditionally held to a marriage as between one man and one woman hasn’t it?

What is it with you guys twisting people’s words? This is what, the 6th time or so in one thread that people have twisted and/or put words in my mouth? Thanks everyone, but I can speak for myself. I spoke of ideals and intentions. It is I believe ideal for a child to have a married, committed, monogamous mother and a father, preferably living together in love. The idea that it doesn’t always turn out that way in no way invalidates the ideal or relegates the single mom, remarried couples or adoptive families to a lesser status. In the same vein I don’t believe civil unions with all the rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage discriminates, as different versions of “marriage” can never be equal – they’re different for crying out loud. But I never gave any hint that “adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent” or that there is only one legitimate type of family. But tell me, how does anyone become a parent without a male and a female? As far as I know there is no such thing as asexual reproduction in humans, so all you happy married gay parents out there, you had to have the other sex involved anyway, didn’t you?

Galveston1

Gay "marriage". Newspeak.

inthebox

I'm all for the traditional "gay" [ "happy", before the homosexuals co-opted the word ] marriage, and I am against sad marriage