I don't know if you want an answer, or a long drawn out talk. Sometimes I notice that the 'questions' are really just sparks to start a discussion fire.xD

Truthfully I vote to allow gay marriage. And to those who don't like it, what's "worse", two woman who are deathly in love getting married, or two drunk lovers getting the knot tied in vegas, baby!

If its for the wrong reasons, duh, of course its bad, but so is normal marriage.

Well Said

I am not a lesbian but in my opinion if you are attracted to someone, whether its your sex or not, and you want to marry that person I don't see anything wrong with it. (I wouldint do it but still)

"Marriage" used to be a religious term. Now it's a legal term. Don't hate the gays for trying to "ruin the sanctity of marriage" - hate the government for involving themselves in marriage long, long ago.

Gay people don't want to ruin the word, or invade your churches, or corrupt your nation. They want to be treated equally. A man and woman of any denomination get "married"; to forbid a man and a man or woman and woman from getting "married" is not equal treatment. THAT is the problem - inequality.

Maybe we should let all of-age, consenting adults get married, and the churches can think of a new word, a new ceremony, a new blessing. After all, it's the government who ruined the word and sanctity "marriage", not the gays. Punish the government by excluding them from something (if they can't tax you on it, it will drive them nuts), and while you're at it exclude anyone who's not a member of your church.

Hi, so I am straight.. and I have no problem with it at all... im sorry but you can't help who you fall in love with you know.

The problem is all these "christians", that is the problem. What about people who have a relegious belief that allows gay marriage. The christians won't allow them to practice their beliefs. It has to be their way or NO WAY. That is what turns me off about christianity. Other belief systems allow for a variety of beliefs. With christianity it is all or nothing. You either believe our way or you should just be dead. That is what burns me I thought America was a FREE country. People came here because they could not practice their beliefs freeley in England and other countries. Now it is the same here.

You want to make it a homosexual issue. But I'm sorry. I can't.. I am not talking about a disease either . . . The topic here is MARRIAGE.

And how marriage currently discriminates against homosexuals.

I really never have understood why straight couples feel so threatened by gay couples. If you get married in a church but do not get the state paperwork completed properly, you are not married in the eyes of the law. There is no requirement for a marriage to be blessed by a church, therefore it makes no sense that the state won't allow it.

How does it hurt me for my gay neighbors to marry? All it does is allow for right of survivorship when it comes to property and certain other next of kin rights. If your argument is because it will "harm" children - that make no sense. They can live together without the benefit of marriage without me being able to stop it. I would much rather my child observe people who commit to one another and build a life (straight or gay) rather than have them see partners as temporary.

Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It's political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald's, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It's because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it's for horses!! Now, that doesn't mean that you can't run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don't be calling Elsie's race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn't mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster's Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.

Fine. Don't let them marry.

But like I said in the other thread--then take away ALL of the privileges that come with marriage, since having those privileges (which, by the way, are provided by the state) discriminates against those who can not marry their chosen partner.

In other words--fine, don't let Bessy run the Kentucky Derby--but then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus because they lose their privileged status as protected from that since THEY are used for transportation and shows, not for eating.

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -

Then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus...

I don’t know where you have been, but that so-called “horseflesh”; that you speak of; as well as unborn calves, and probably even cuts of canine have been showing up in potted meat, and little-boy wieners, since your great-grandmothers were legally single. That is what we have the United States Department of Agriculture, Meat Inspection Department for . . . To PROTECT US!! Unfortunately, for your grandparents, and all of those legally married loved ones before them; there will not be enough “protection” for their marriage to wind up being anything more than some kind of meaningless “political authoritative sanction”. For future generations, the term, “Marriage” will be simply worthless. That is why we need to protect the institution now, as it is. Someday we may not have it any more. What then? . . . Acupuncture? . . . Hmmmmm? . . . Wait a minute . . . That might be the answer. Don’t call it Marriage at all; since it is not marriage at all. Just call it “Unionized Acupuncture”. Let our spendthrift Congress, throw some U. S. dollars at it; and then put it to a vote. Find a plan, and stick to it!! (NPI)

Wait--so your definition of marriage isn't "two people who love each other and commit to each other, for the rest of their lives, through good times and bad, through sickness and health, for richer for poorer"?

What IS your definition of marriage then? I think, frankly, that my great-grandparents would be HONORED to have more people who truly honor what marriage IS join their ranks, regardless of sexual preference. I think what has them turning in their graves are the number of people who marry and divorce for stupid reasons.

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -
__________________
This is purely my opinion

In other words, just admit that I am right; and it's your opinion that I am right. That's not just my opinion . . . It's common sense.

Isn't marriage an institution that is currently experiencing a 50% failure rate the way it is?

Sorry, but I don't think you are right - I don't think it's common sense for you to post that you want to blow up more than a few buildings and people because of the loss of your wife - I still don't know what that has to do with gay marriage.

Quite frankly, I think that's a sign of mental instability to say nothing of the poor judgment involved in posting it on a public board.

Lots of people on this Board have grief in their personal lives - I don't see them posting rants.

What qualifies you to speak for "they." What THEY want; what THEY run and so forth -

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Addressing your earlier post which is something about a trust fund and Attorneys working you over - why don't you post the specifics of that and give everybody a fair shot at trying to understand.

Or better yet, move the explanation to the legal board -

I will add that my late husband set up a trust and nobody's working me over or taking advantage of me -

[QUOTE=Wondergirl]Wills are contested by family members, and a gay partner very possibly will lose in court.QUOTE]



Sorry, but Wills are contested every day by straights, gays, parents, children, spouses. Some win and some lose - there is no "very possibly" in any category and gays are not at a disadvantage in a Will contest.

If the Will is properly and appropriately written, executed and filed and kept up to date anyone can contest but the Will will prevail.

And marriage most definitely does NOT give anyone the right to make medical decisions for another person - you can get info, you can assist the person with decisions but if they cannot not longer participate in those discussions you do not have the right to make the decisions.

If you want to have or give that right you MUST execute and file the appropriate documents - a living Will, a DNR, whatever makes you (and your partner) comfortable.

Does anyone remember Terri Shiavo who may - or may not - have made her wishes clear but never put it in writing and then her parents attempted to make the decision in place of her husband and the fight was on? Put it in writing, folks, put it in writing. Give the right to make medical decisions to your partner, your neighbor, your parent - but put your intentions and orders in writing and file it!

I've been there. At the lowest, most desolate, lonely, distraught point of your life you could be standing there saying, "But I'm the spouse. I have the right ..." and you could very well be wrong.

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Odds are you are the one who is somewhat "racially confused". I do have an issue with Jesse Jackson's ideology of the meaning of the word "Reverend" that he insists on politically, rather tax-freely, attaching to the front of his name. With all due respect for Mr. Jackson as a man; not much as a politcian; I address him as Mr. Jackson. Why? . . . Since you are making such a mysterious issue about his race or race, in general; what do you call him?