jcates81, i think you need a drink and a relaxing smoke. you are waaaaay too uptight.

When I was single...I consided homosexuals a reduction in the competition over single women. WTF...getting a few thousand gay men off the hetero market frees up a few thousand potential women they would otherwise be dating had they not felt it was okay to be gay.

But then again...I grew up in the Bay Area...so I really didn't give a hoot what other people did in their beds. They weren't coming door to door asking me to convert...like some other groups do.

rayder, this isn't about being gay so much as it is about protecting gay unions. i have no problem with gays having relationships. i just don't think it should be recognized as a marriage and receive all the benefits of marriage. i know it seems similar, but it really is a different subject.

My major bitch about the gay marriage thing is quite simple: the very idea of all law abiding citizens not having access to the same legal rights stinks as far as I'm concerned; it's unconstitutional and offensive to the notions of justice and liberty. Why some childless hetero couple can get tax breaks that a gay couple can't, or some gay couple with children is denied the same tax benefits and legal visitation rights as a hetero couple with kids makes my moral temper flare; especially when it comes to the kids. The heck with marriage, make it illegal, but equal legal justice and freedom under the law should not be tossed aside so casually. It's ok to disagree with someone on principle, but if that amounts to stripping them (and their children) of their legal rights under the law, then I'm out.

Lofty1,
I'm in agreement with you for the most part.
Leaving out as much of the religious influence as possible. I have a problem with the recognition, of a legal same sex marriage, being imparted to gays. I'm no historian, nor have I conducted studies to see what social genre is more prone to contract illness or disease than another, but I do believe the homosexual lifestyle is rated a much higher health risk than the heterosexual.

As cexshun touched on, incestial marriage is illegal based on health issues the child may have. Taking health issues into consideration, I am hesitant to accept gay marriages. I believe both life and health insurance premiums would raise. Social Security taxes may go up, as gay beneficiaries would then be eligible for survivor benifits, and the list of cons could go on and on. I am also sure proponents can say the list of pros could go on and on. I suppose everyone has a stance, on each and every topic, and many of us will never be swayed.

However in the end we all share this government and piece of land. Whatever our indivdual differences may be, the rest of the world sees each of us as the same AMERICAN !

Don't forget to VOTE !

Cuda

True....but the subject was tilting towards anti-gay.

I agree that marriage, it's financial benefits and social benefits are geared towards the result of marriage....children and raising a family.

If there is a benefit extended...(insurance, state provided assistance, social security benefits, retirement benefits) should there be a requirement that children were produced from the marriage in order to justify the economic benefits?

It's a quandry. The gay marriage opponents say that it isn't natural....children aren't produced from the union so it wasn't G_d's intent. Other philisophical issues arise from the fact that gay couples cannot produce children directly from their union.

I do know a number of gay couples who raise children they have adopted. Funny thing...I know a couple who's kids are in high school. Guess what...they didn't follow in their parents footsteps in gender preference.
Actually...there is no study to support that gay unions and the children raised in those unions are hindered in their development.

So...do we extend them the same rights as hetero married couples? They behave no different...raise kids no different....many you wouldn't recognize away from their partners as being gay. It's a tough call. It would be nice if a gay couple's children could benefit from the same treatment (social and economic) as their hetero produced friends do.

But there can be abuses.

Now..as far as abortion goes.....I think only women should be allowed to have a say on that subject.

OK, if the woman is the only one who has a say on the subject, I demand my sperm back.

cexshun, you deflected my question but didn't really answer it. Do you think if same sex marriage is allowed that the next logical step, multiple partner marriage, should be allowed?

Also what if a brother and sister had an operation to make them sterile, or for that matter age has naturally made them sterile. Should they be allowed to get married?

I'm feeling greatly outnumbered and corned here. My question have not been answered while everyone is expecting me to field every one of their question without missing 1. I respect your opinion and will not try to force mine onto you. I'll be backing out of this debate as I'm starting to feel like a black man at a KKK rally. Piece and love to all.

Sorry Cexshun, I must have missed your questions. Otherwise I would have been more then happy to answer them.

The ideal family is the Cleavers. The Partridge family is neurotic. The O'Donnell family is psychotic.

piece? piece of what?



just being my normal jerk self.

Piece uhhh fuit cake, maybe, piece uhhh pie, or is that pizza pie ?

Cuda