[sassyT]

Hello sassy:

If it's NOT about those things, then the state must grant equal access to any contract that bestows RIGHTS upon people. Those RIGHTS are available to ANYBODY. That's how our wonderful system works, and THAT'S where they should draw the line - when EVERYBODY shares the same rights.

excon

So should the State Bestow the RIGHTS on an Individual who wants to marry a dog? Where does the State draw the line? The person who wants marry a dog could present the same argument as gays and demand exqual rights to marry whom or what ever he want to. He could also say he is in love with his dog and wants to be able to marry it and receive the same benefits as a normal married couple.
It could become a real circus unless the State establishes an unwavering standard of normality of what marriage has always been... One MAN and One WOMAN.

[Synnen]

Actually, if you're really that Christian, you'd realize that marriage has not ALWAYS been ONE man and ONE woman.

It's been, even in the Bible, one man and SEVERAL women. Isn't THAT against your definition of marriage too?

AGAIN--because you aren't getting this apparently--Two men (or two women) can CONSENT to marry each other. They have brains, and voices, and the ability to state that this is what they want.

A DOG (or any other animal) can NOT voice CONSENT. Therefore, it's not even in the same subject here.

Seriously--what part of CONSENTING ADULT are you not getting?

[Tuscany]

So should the State Bestow the RIGHTS on an Individual who wants to marry a dog? Where does the State draw the line? the person who wants marry a dog could present the same argument as gays and demand exqual rights to marry whom or what ever he want to. He could also say he is inlove with his dog and wants to be able to marry it and recieve the same benefits as a normal married couple.
It could become a real circus unless the State establishes an unwavering standard of normality of what marriage has always been ... One MAN and One WOMAN.

I am sorry but I fail to see your connection. The Declaration of Independence says all MEN are created equal not all men and animals. How can you compare the love between two people to bestiality?

[sassyT]

You are wrong on this. Those that oppose gay marriage often point to the bible (a piece of literary work) and moral decay.

People have their own reasons to oppose Gay marriage, I opposed it just based on common sense of what is normal.

Standards of normal... wow there is no such thing. What's normal in the North East is not "normal" in the south. How can you have standards for normal when normal is so subjective?

Marriage has always been between a man and woman in america and around the world. I don't see why it should be redifined just because a small minority of people who have made a decision to live their lives in defiance to nature. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gays, in fact I have a lot of gay friends and co-workers I talk to and they all know my views on the subject. I don't care if they want to make commitents to each other, I just don't see why the State should forced to recognise such unions valid because then they may as well change the definition of marriage to include who ever wants to marry another man, animal, plant or object. You know there will be a minority of people who will want to marry their dog or cat. If you redifine marriage you may as well include anyone and anything right?

[Synnen]

/sigh

CONSENTING: Able to give permission
ADULT: Those over 18 years of age.

Do you honestly believe that someone or something unable to give personal consent to such a union would be allowed?

When the United States started, it was known that slavery would ALWAYS exist, and the women were the PROPERTY of their husbands. Want to go back to that, because it's such a slippery slope--I mean, my god! Someone, somewhere (probably a politician) wants their DOG to be able to vote, I'm sure! Or since kids are people too--let's let THEM vote! I mean, since we redefined a couple times who is a valid voting citizen of this country, that's a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, someone will bring their PLANTS to the voting booth for them!

[sassyT]

/sigh

CONSENTING: Able to give permission
ADULT: Those over 18 years of age.

Do you honestly believe that someone or something unable to give personal consent to such a union would be allowed?

When the United States started, it was known that slavery would ALWAYS exist, and the women were the PROPERTY of their husbands. Want to go back to that, because it's such a slippery slope--I mean, my god! Someone, somewhere (probably a politician) wants their DOG to be able to vote, I'm sure! Or since kids are people too--let's let THEM vote!! I mean, since we redefined a couple times who is a valid voting citizen of this country, that's a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, someone will bring their PLANTS to the voting booth for them!

Your analogy does nothing for your argument because you are not comparing apples to apples here we are talking about marriage. Changing slavery laws and redefining the union that makes marriage is not the same thing.
IF your argument is about consenting adults then are you saying the state should also be forced to recognise polygamous marriages too.

If we are going to give marriage right to everyone who demands them, then The state may as well give rights to a woman who want to marry 5 willing men or a man who wants to marry 20 willing wives. The state should recognise it? These are all "CONSENTING adults" so Where do we draw the line here?

[wolf200050]

Yes... homosexuality is wrong. Parts entering "exit only" parts, damaging vital organs. It is just not the way we were intended to be. You know it is funny when I hear that homosexuals were born that way, because if that was the case than why have I met so many people that use to be gay or lesbian, but now they aren't?hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

[Tuscany]

People have their own reasons to oppose Gay marriage, i opposed it just based on common sense of what is normal.



Marriage has always been between a man and woman in america and around the world. i dont see why it should be redifined just because a small minority of people who have made a descision to live their lives in defiance to nature. Dont get me wrong, i dont hate gays, infact i have a lot of gay friends and co-workers i talk to and they all know my views on the subject. I dont care if they want to make commitents to each other, I just dont see why the State should forced to recognise such unions valid because then they may as well change the definition of marriage to include who ever wants to marry another man, animal, plant or object. You know there will be a minority of people who will want to marry their dog or cat. If you redifine marriage you may as well include anyone and anything right?

They are not looking to marry an animal plat or object. They want to marry another HUMAN BEING that they love honor and respect. How would you feel if you were told how and who to love?



I just don't see your connection to animals. When has anyone asked to marry an animal??

Wolf- my aunt was married prior to coming out. If you ask her, she was always gay. She just tried to be what society wanted her to be. Now she has put herself first. Closeminded people can just look the other way.

[talaniman]

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

Not to homosexuals, its natural as breathing. The only time its a problem is when people stick their noses in someone elses business.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

They are not looking to marry an animal plat or object. They want to marry another HUMAN BEING that they love honor and respect. How would you feel if you were told how and who to love?

Who said anyone is telling them how and who to love? They can love and get "married" or make comitments to one another, but just don't force the state to recognise it.

I just don't see your connection to animals. When has anyone asked to marry an animal??

If you don't get he animal connection then see what I said to synnen.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

yes...homosexuality is wrong. Parts entering "exit only" parts, damaging vital organs. It is just not the way we were intended to be. You know it is funny when I hear that homosexuals were born that way, because if that was the case than why have I met so many people that use to be gay or lesbian, but now they aren't?hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

They still are or never were... I honestly believe that you are born with a sexuality just as you were born with chosen genetalia...

Also, it appears you are only referring to gay men here, at least in the first part of the statement. 1. Where did you hear anal intercourse "damages vital organs"? 2. Not just homosexual men have anal intercourse, so I don't think that argument is arguable...

[ChihuahuaMomma]

I also want to applaud whoever disabled the reputation here... that could have not been good!

[excon]

Hello wolf:

I don't know. If you're a guy, it's too bad you'll never experience the wonder of a great blow job. If you're a girl, you're only giving your guy 10% if'in you don't give him head.

Poor, poor Christians..

excon

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Hello wolf:

I dunno. If you're a guy, it's too bad you'll never experience the wonder of a great blow job. If you're a girl, you're only giving your guy 10% if'in you don't give him head.

Poor, poor Christians..

excon

I must have missed that part...

[Synnen]

your analogy does nothing for your argument because you are not comparing apples to apples here we are talking about marriage. Changing slavery laws and redefining the union that makes marriage is not the same thing.
IF your argument is about consenting adults then are you saying the state should also be forced to recognise polygamous marriages too.

If we are going to give marriage right to everyone who demands them, then The state may as well give rights to a woman who want to marry 5 willing men or a man who wants to marry 20 willing wives. The state should recognise it? These are all "CONSENTING adults" so Where do we draw the line here?

Why NOT? Why would THAT be a problem, either? Who would it be hurting? The poor, poor people who think marriage = ONE man + ONE woman? BTW, I really hope you don't believe in divorce, either. Since marriage is supposed to be "til death do us part", then they should either kill one another or stick to it for life, hmmm?

As far as why the state needs to be involved--we've told you, over and over: Because the STATE is the one who makes inheritance laws. The STATE is the one who decides who can make medical decisions for an impaired adult. The STATE is the one who makes custody decisions. The STATE is the one who determines property ownership. The STATE is the one who determines who gets tax cuts.

If you were arguing that the CHURCH should not have to recognize gay marriage, I'd agree with you. I don't think the CHURCH should have to recognize anything outside of its set tenets. However, we're talking about the STATE, not the CHURCH.

PS--we're talking about changing laws that affect a group of people NOT in the majority of thinking, and NOT in power. THAT is why bringing up women's right to vote/hold property and slavery are valid arguments.

[excon]

Hello mamma:

This is a person who thinks there's a part of a body with an exit only sign on it, meaning that it's no place for penis's. Therefore, for the sake of consistancy, I'm assuming that he thinks her mouth also is no place for penis's.

If not, he's just making up the rules as he goes along to suit himself.

excon

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Very well said Synnen!! I agree 110%

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Hello mamma:

This is a person who thinks there's a part of a body with an exit only sign on it, meaning that it's no place for penis's. Therefore, for the sake of consistancy, I'm assuming that he thinks her mouth also is no place for penis's.

If not, he's just making up the rules as he goes along to suit himself.

excon

I see I see, makes sense...

[WVHiflyer]

Morality is the base of most law, and Morality is based on normally some religous values.

An organized society, no matter how small a population, sets laws for its cohesiveness and order. Those rules became equated with religion when rel became a seemingly imp't part of the society. My morality is not in the least based on religion. The closest I can come to admitting that is that I see only the need for 1 'commandment.' It shows up in all major religions (and, I think, most minor ones as well) and cannot be claimed solely by any one rel. It is not listed as one of the Judeo/Christian 10 C, though it is in the Bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A group that believes doing harm, theft, etc is "doing unto..." wouldn't last very long.

[Morteza]

Hey Listen! Because we are HUMAN! We have the ability to think, decide, This is the only thing which makes us different with the other creatures! Ability of thinking, ability of deciding!
Another reason is that, we are not here in this damn world, to enjoy our BODY! We have spend our time on another things such as enjoying nature, learning, understanding, thinking!
And I appreciate you because you have thought on this matter, this pcychologically means that you still are ration and yourself know that this is not true
Personal info deleted


Be Happy,(not in a stupid way)

;-)