obviously. how does allowing gays to get married stop straights from procreating? how does it stop straights from doing anything except having special rights? gays are gay regardless of the laws, and so are straights. allowing gays to marry doest somehow ruin straights attempt to procreate. dont use this straw man junk on me. i love traditional marriage. its fantastic. my parents did it, and i will too. i am looking forward to it so much i can barely stand it. i never once said i had anything against traditional marriage. when i get married, it will not have any effect on me if some flaming homos are getting married in some other place somewhere. my traditional marriage would not be "destroyed". would anyone's? would yours?
I notice now its you who avoid answering. You and other gay advocates propose changing centuries of tradition in terms of marriage. Usually when such a dramatic change is promoted by those carrying the gay agenda, there is a reason promulgated for the change? Where is it? At one point you suggest the only reason is because some mysterious and evil wizards are promoting the standard. Then you suggest that their no difference between the relationship between a man and woman in matrimony than a mop and a crocodile. Then its Big Brothers fault, despite the fact the most powerful Big Brothers in America are the source of this societal change, namely the Federal Courts. Once again, totally doing away with licensing professionals doesn't stop those professionals who are licensed through traditional means from practing their trade. Once again, you can accomplish your gay agenda through other reasonable, legitimate means through the tax code. Be it for any pair or group you want to promote. It is yourself and other promoters of the gay agenda, going to Big Brother Federal Courts, seeking to change the law and centuries of tradition.
it kinda makes me laugh to myself that because i am anti-big government i am now a "gay advocate". trust me i am not gay advocate. its just this particular issue where i think the gays are getting screwed. on other issues i hate gays. if i hear any more homos claiming that hate crime laws are justified, it will make me want to commit a hate crime myself. i never said the wizard was evil. i just assumed that the reason you care that married people must have the proper sexual equipment in the proper proportions had to be based on some sort of magic. i cant see another reason to care. i didnt say there was no difference. i said there is no reason for me to give a damn who is dating who and who signed what. if you get married, it doesnt affect my life. if homos get married, it doesnt affect me. if a crocodile marries a mop, it doesnt affect me. or you. i see that you want your government to protect you. i dont need protection. gays can marry all day and have 45 man marriage orgies for all i care. lesbians can go nuts all they want and get married, and if they are sexy i would hope they invite me over to their house. the difference between our opinions is that you believe that the government needs to endorse your social norms. i dont. i believe marriage is a great thing that will be fine, independent of any laws. i dont think the institution of marriage needs protection. if i had my way, courts would abolish all marriage laws of any kind. but since they are stupid enough to have the laws, might as well be equal with them. i dont think the law should discriminate against people just because you (and i agree) think they are disgusting. it just isnt fair that the homos dont get the same benefits for pairing off. sure, what they do seems to be about as disgusting to me as anything, but that isnt relevant. i dont want to tell other people what to do if it doesnt affect me. other peoples freedom ends when it infringes upon mine, not when they are doing stuff with each other. live and let live. don't be scared, heterosexual marriage wont go anywhere, not matter how many gays sign marriage certificates.
From a social, legal, political, dare I say religious and rational viewpoint, the definition of marriage has been between one man and one woman. Now I know the people who came before us were all ignoramuses unelightened as we are by television sitcoms and law review articles and NY Times editorials. If we agree on anything, it would have to be that as of right now, in the United States, as it has been for centuries, the definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Now some gay advocates such as yourself want to change that. You can't claim to be neutral on the subject and at the same time want to change the definition. You can say that if it comes to a vote, you won't participate because you think its a non-issue like voting for some political office you don't care about. You can say if their is a legislative bill, you won't write your representative because you don't care about it. But that's not what you have done. You've advocated for a position. For a change. And such change would come from the Court system. The ultimate Big Brother in our society. Live and let live means you don't care what a homo or a dog or a crocodile does in the privacy of their own lair. You could stretch it to mean you don't care what 2,3,4,8 homos, dogs and crocodiles do in the privacy of on of their lairs. But what you are endorsing is a government license of your gay advocacy position. Either champion the abolition of the idea of licensed marriages or explain why you believe it should be changed to promote your gay agenda. Societal norms are not a bad thing.
that is what i am doing. i am wildly in favor of abolition of marriage licenses! i would much prefer complete abolition of marriage licensing by the government. marriage could be privatized and work fine. does a marriage get its strength from the force of the government behind a signed pieve of paper? its because i have faith in marriage that i do not believe it needs the government to be involved. if the government is involved, it changes everything for the worse. gays will whine that it isnt fair to them, and they will be right. what you want is special rights from the government, i say nobody deserves any special rights, and if they get them, then the people who do not get them have a legit complaint. just like i am opposed to hate crime laws that stupidly offer gays unequal protection under the law. laws favoring one group or another are stupid. like only allowing certain people marriage benefits, or affirmative action. i think the government should almost never interfere with our business, but when they do, its even worse that they cant be fair. but people like you always want protection from their precious government. you need protection from the gays. i dont. they dont hurt my feelings. here, read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127
Oh, heaven forbid gays get equal marriage rights! Cause you know, once they are married, all your children are gonna start listening to Boy George and wearing muscle shirts! Thank heaven for straight folks like Britney Spears, who honor the sanctity of marriage. :dis:
How ignorant centuries of Americans have been. Deprived of the luxuriating, yet enlightening half-hour sit-coms and other legitimate sources of intelligence that instructs us that gays are required to entertain equal marriage right. A right no doubt buried deep within the vaults of the penumbra of the Constitution. Shaken loose by European courts and the highest quality law school faculties. Oh the beauty of the gay advocate, their mind emptied by what they read or hear on television. Capturing their masculinity one embrace of gay right after the other.
Here's the deal. If you cannot have sex without one of the partners having to grab his ankles you can't get married.
to be honest, i dont know what a penumbra is. however, i do know the constitution doesnt mention marriage, and shouldnt, because it is not the job of the government to manage social relationships. down with big government.
The 10th Amendment reserves all rights not mentioned in the first nine to the states and the people. I know we fought a War to eliminate the state part of the deal. The people part is important because it doesn't say the individual, it says the collective people. That's why we have traffic laws, zoning laws, criminal laws, contract laws, numerous other laws left to the people through the ballot and elective representatives. While the live and let live is a nice overused slogan, its not unreasonable to believe that there may and does come a time where the people collectively may seek to enforce community norms and standards to avoid anarchy. I'd note also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that no law shall be made unless it is made because someone would be directly affected or hurt unless such a law was passed. And any good gay rights advocate should know what the penumbra is, that's where the right to privacy is buried or was buried for 200 years.
