Gay Marriage

The main reason is archaic (The military is a very conservative organization) that homosexuals try to screw all other people of the same sex, thus a lack of order. Having spent nearly 30 years in the military, I saw this numerous times. I agree

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

The word "eating" was also being used by "Hetros" (I capitalized it for you.); should Homos find another word, say "geating". But there are gay words too. You'll have to start using strabulous for fabulous, and strinema for cinema.Is this really all a semantics game to you? I've not noticed your usage of the English language to be quite, or do I have to use strite, so exacting as to believe your only interest in this matter is the integrity of our beloved language.One problem is you're not going far enough. You have set the standard as Gays have the same right to marry as you. But you're defining the right to marring as to "the opposite sex". But whence comes the generality of the definition. Seems if we're going to stringently meet "same rights as you", and you only have the right to marry a woman, then all people should only be allowed to marry women. Hey, if you're going to allow a little generality . in for a penny, in for a pound.Edited by lyx2no, : To change that horrible heading.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

I'm not playing stupid, ass.If someone says: "ZOMG! Gheys have teh consitutional right to marry".And then I explain why they don't.Then you come in and start talking about all these other rights associated with marriage, and I don't follow because you never specified what your were saying, then I'm not playing stupid, you're just debating poorly. Now you're playing dumb.Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman... we've been over this. It doesn't matter to me if they do or not. It does matter to me if you trample all over the constitution and open it up to say any thing you want it to say.The way our Constitution and laws are written, Gays cannot get these benefits from someone of the same sex. The benefits, themselves, could be changed to allow people to bring in people that they aren't married to or the definition of marriage needs to be changed. But I'm not going to sit here and watch people tear up the Constitution and say that it says that this or that is unconsitutional and we must allow gay into marriage. Because I'm not blinded by the hatred I have for people with different oppinions than mine. They're not being denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation. Your judgement is clouded by your bigoty. All that crap above is bullshit hate-speach you fucking bigot. The ambiguity of the implicit definition of marriage would cause the need for the explicit definition again. Actually, before Bill Clinton (the homophobic bigot I suppose) signed DOMA, marriage was already defined, albeit implicitly, as between one man and one woman. Then it would seem that those rights could be what are unconstitutional, not necessarily definition of marriage itself Those rights could just as easily be called discriminatory because they are for married people only. Its just not as flawed as you think, I mean, want it to be. There isn't anything that discriminates against sexual orientation by preventing a gay person from entering the contract of marriage. I did too. I'm not going to rewrite everything here right now. I'll come back and link you to the messages where I've explained myself while you're searching for them yourself. No, I'm not "shooting" for it. But it is a possibility. Oh fuck you asshole. Any chance you get to vilify you opponent and spout hate speech You're way more a bigot than I am.I'm not making any assumptions about gays at all. I was honestly answering a question about what I thought the military's reasons were. Why do you think they don't want gays in the military? Lemme guess, because they're homophobic bigots, right? You're a real piece of work.

---

Wow, I just did an google image search for gay pride parade:gay pride parade - Google SearchIt seems that they are all about sex...

quote:

---

Please help me out here. A marriage between a man and a woman is not the same thing as a "marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

---

Alright HM, besides the obvious gender differences between the two types of relationships, what do you see as a difference in a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship? If everything else is the same (love, family, partnership, etc.) than why do you consider the two so different? I only ask because when I look at the two, all I see is a gender difference?

Think of it this way, Taz, and then maybe you might finally begin to understand where I'm coming from.There are only so many illustrations one could give about homosexuality, since it best can be juxtaposed by other forms of sexuality. I think you are aware that I'm fond of illustrations, metaphors, parables, and the like to begin with. So there should be no mystery there.There are only so many things human beings can copulate with to begin with, and consequently, people seem to have an aversion to all of them!So the premise of homosexuality is that it is a completely natural occurrence, and to try and force them to be sexual towards the opposite sex is like trying to swim upstream. Well, okay, I can appreciate that argument. But the problem is that this has never been substantiated scientifically, so while I can certainly accept the theory, I am not completely convinced. I'm also not convinced that isn't, either, so that should make you happy to some degree.Now, if you were to ask a paedophile how long he's had these sexual feelings towards pre-pubscent boys or girls, he may say that he's always "felt" that way. So if I ask you how you know that is either true or untrue, or whether or not its a justification, you saying that I'm equivocating is the last thing I wanna hear. Because for starters, you aren't even answering a legitimate question, and secondly you are manipulating what I'm saying.I can only surmise that it is intentional since we've been over this a few times in the past.If you can't tell exactly what I'm doing, I am turning the tables around to get everyone to think about their argument either from a scientific, philosophical, or moral stance. As of now, emotive arguments seem to be the fuel driving this bus. And quite frankly, I don't what it "feels" like for them, so it is difficult for me to sympathize with that aspect. I want something substantive so that I can understand it.As to the rationale, its inconsistent and illogical. If I call somebody out on the inconsistency or the failure to employ logic, why must my intent, which is explicit, be manipulated to mean something it so obviously doesn't -- the equivocation of homosexuals to other things? My questions are geared towards searching for weaknesses in logic. That is primarily what I am doing. It almost has less to do with the topic than it does debating.I think you know by now that if I feel a certain way, I'll just flat out tell you. If I really had a gigantic problem with homosexuals I would just tell you. So I will just be brutally honest right now, and tell you exactly how I view the situation.In a few words, I view it tentatively.Part of me thinks that maybe it is psychological, part of me thinks it could be something like a transvestite, where the sexual components might have been crossed. I mean, why do men find women attractive, and why do women find men attractive in the first place? There are multiple reasons, I'm sure. So it is conceivable that a man would find another man attractive in a sexual way at some point, no fault of his own. And should I receive some sort of definitive answer confirming that, I will wholly accept it.The other thing is that I like to debate. That's why I'm here. I'm not trying to make a difference in the world. Perhaps I should be, but I'm here for my own selfish reasons. Some people like video games, I like intellectual debate. I also seem to gravitate towards the underdog position because its a challenge. It may seem to you like I'm out to get gay people, but I'm really, truly, and honestly not. I really don't care all that much to be perfectly honest. Again, perhaps that I should, but I don't.Its only when the subject comes up do I speak about it. It just so happens to come up often here.In any case, I have apologized, even when I didn't particularly feel like I had to, to a few people. I apologized to Berberry. I wasn't out to hurt his feelings, I was just debating. I apologized if he misunderstood me, or if I allowed myself to say things I shouldn't have out of frustration. He accepted my apology and we even made plans to go out to lunch when he was coming out to Los Angeles on a trip. He never ended up calling because I think he couldn't make it all the way to California. Regardless, the point is that I had no problem with hanging out with him. His homosexuality would have been nothing to me.I agree that many Christians flame homosexuals with more ferocity than other things, and I don't agree with it. If the Judeo-Christian ethic is true, then his sin would be no more wrong than my own sins. And who am I to judge? I'm a piece of crap, as far as I'm concerned. I have high standards for myself, and I often don't live up to my own expectations.Long story short, I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'm not trying to offend people. I'm debating. I'm also learning in the process about my views and how to learn about others views. I'm wrestling with ideas, especially one's that I have not come to a sure answer for. Homosexuality is one of them.In the meantime, I am sympathetic somewhat to the plight facing homosexuals. At the same time, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those offering a caveat. To me it seems like civil unions would be a good place to start, because it offers a compromise that both parties shouldn't reasonably object to... at least in my opinion, anyhow.I hope that cleared the air as much as possible.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

But you are playing stupid, because you fucking know what I'm talking about because I have explained it multiple fucking times. So you're either playing stupid or you are in reality quite stupid.And what's truly sad about your argument is that it basically comes down to you not giving a shit that a homosexual couple, that may have been together for decades, cannot make these decisions (taxes, medical , housing, adoption, visitation, etc) because you don't want them to have this right...simply and totally because of their sexual orientation. Correction...marriage has only recently been defined as being between one man and one women. And we both know that this was done only after homophobic bigots discovered that there were no legal ways to prevent homosexuals from marrying. We've been over this. I am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for you (with hope, in your next response) to me to explain how it is that I am trampling all over the Constitution. I can't fucking wait to read this. Please, please, oh please explain to me how the 9th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals. Please, oh please tell me exactly what parts of the Constitution I am trampling all over. Total Bullshit. The Constitution in no way prevents homosexual marriage...as we are repeatedly seeing in virtually every case brought to the higher Courts. Well, I guess we as a Nation are forever grateful that you are not now, nor will you ever be (I hope), a Supreme Court Justice.But honestly though, is this now your latest tactic? Your claims of me being a bigot are untrue. Your claims if not knowing what I mean by the "rights" of gay marriage are bogus. So now you're gonna resort to stating that I'm "tearing up" our Constitution...and that you're not gonna sit here and watch it. Ha....good one. Way to follow the Republican Party play-book of: if all else fails (i.e., if you can't come up with a justifiable reason), then "attack their patriotism". Nice. I don't hate you...I've never even met you...I just think your a bigoted homophobe. I wait with baited breath for you to explain to me how I am behaving as a bigot. Seriously, you really need to learn what the term means. Just repeating it over and over doesnt really mean anything. I have explained numerous times what it takes to be a bigot. Simply disagreeing with another position does not, ipso facto make one a bigot. We've been over this repeatedly...try to keep up, will ya.It takes intolerance to be a bigot. Your position does harm to another as a result of your being intolerant of their opinion. You want to deny them something. You do them harm...actual harm. My position, while in complete disagreement with yours, does nothing to you. If my position is reality, then all people are treated equally under the law. Do you see the difference? I mean I've explained it about as many times as I possibly can by now. Yet you just don't seem to grasp the major difference(s) between simply having differing opinions as compared to acting like a bigot. It's the intolerance. It's the harm you do to another by forcing your views upon them. But why did people feel the need to make "your" implicit definition more of an explicit definition in the first place? Could it be because they wanted to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Yep...that'd be the reason. So explain to me again why these recent definitions are not based on sexual orientation, I just love reading your fairy tails. Is this your 1874 SCOTUS decision that actually addressed polygamy and voter registration, and not what defines "marriage"? The definition that also includes the words "Holy Matrimony" that you somehow or another conveniently don't feel should also apply to all marriages? Well, it's only problematic if you deny certain groups the right to marry. And since that's exactly what you're doing, then I guess one could argue that discrimination is taking place. And we stop this discrimination how? Well, we stop denying homosexuals the right the marry the person of their choice. See...that was soooo easy. I'll simply refer you to almost any post by Rrhain. He's admittedly done a much better job of it than I have. And really, CS, it's not too difficult to simply look back at some of his previous posts. Or better yet, read the CSC decision...they, being CSC Justices and all, do a pretty damned fine job of it. And the SCOTUS completely disagrees with you. It's been addressed and answered all ready. Separate but equal is Unconstitutional. You said it, not me?Why do you think that homosexual intercourse is any more problematic in a barracks than heterosexual intercourse? If it's something that suppose to be disallowed, then it's applicable to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. How many heterosexuals caught having sex in a barracks have been discharged, do you suppose? Honestly, I have no idea, but I doubt that it's an automatic discharge. Now, you may argue that the probability of homosexual intercourse is greater, but again, I have no idea if that's actually the case in reality. However, if sex in the barracks is a no-no, then so be it...I have no problem with a discharge for those caught in the act (so to speak), no matter their sexual orientation.Also, if I misunderstood what you meant (I totally took it as a slam on gays being unable to control their dicks around other men), then I admit my error and apologise. I can honestly NOT think of any other reason. Can you? Come on CS...Gays have been in the military for as long as there has been a military. Who fucking cars if they're gay. Well, as it turns out many militaries don't fucking care...so why should ours.Honestly, have you heard some of the reasons? I have...I have spoken with some military people and those that do not want gays, by-and-large feel that way because they are homophobic. They find it repulsive...it's against their religion...they don't want to be hit on...they fear that a homo will turn chicken and run...blah, blah, blah. Certainly not all of them...and probably not even close to a majority of them. But what other legitimate reason can you give me to exclude gays from military service? And why should homosexuality alone, be justification for a discharge? If they've done nothing wrong, other than being born gay...if they've never had sex in a barracks (for example), then why should an individual with an otherwise spotless record...perhaps even a vital member of the armed forces, be discharged simply because of their sexual orientation. Hell, CS, is that not a classic example of Bigotry?

I've been following a bit... I'm afraid you ARE equivocating.Is there any difference between a sanctioned boxing match and someone beating you senseless on the street?One scenario involves two CONSENSUAL ADULTS - you wilfully ignore this point time and time again - and the other does not. When you purposely conflate the two you are implying that both are deviant behaviors.There is absolutely nothing - save for a mythical book and your heebie jeebies - that separates the consenual act of sex amongst same sex partners and the same act between opposite partners.

No, it's all about semantics to the gays. They want to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to suit their out-of-the-closet purposes. It's all about the word. And the word "marriage" applies only to heterosexual civil unions, except for two homophilic states now: CA and MA, I think. But I still say let the gays get their own word.The simplest of all solutions is to get the word "marriage" out of the law. Then I will no longer have to be legally attached to "gay marriage," or whatever the word they choose to use.Question: Would you go for a differentiation in the law between "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage"? Two kinds of marriages, both legal? It seems clear enough to me that they are the not same kinds of marriages. How could they be? Really, it's silly!”HM

Sorry to butt in here, PMOC, but you said this: If what you say is true then why do I seem to detect a difference between ordinary sex and gay sex. I think I'm pretty good at detecting a difference here, unless we're all playing a game of the Emperor's New Cloths. I can usually tell when something is out of the ordinary when, say in the movies, I see two men fumbling around with each other in bed. It looks a lot different to me from a man and a woman fumbling around in bed.Absolutely nothing, you say? Come on!”HM

I have only one dog in this fight: "Marriage" applies only to heterosexual civil unions. The gays want to plunder tradition in the minds of most decent people in this country, who happen to matter, by insisting that "marriage" should apply also to their same-sex civil unions. All I'm saying is let them have their civil unions, and let them call it something other than "marriage," because it isn't.”HM

So you are proposing the drastic and very expensive process of ripping "marriage" from ALL laws in the country. And repassing everything with "civil union" in it's place?Thus removing all references and definition of "marriage" from any legal statutes which affect someones lives?

I have only one dog in this fight: "Marriage" applies only to same race civil unions. The inter-racials want to plunder tradition in the minds of most decent people in this country, who happen to matter, by insisting that "marriage" should apply also to their inter-racial civil unions. All I'm saying is let them have their civil unions, and let them call it something other than "marriage," because it isn't.Are you so blind as you don't see the hypocrisy in your own words?

And if you had been paying attention to what I have been saying for at least a year now, so what if homosexuality is completely a choice? Seriously, so what?Pursuit of happiness without violating other people's rights is one of the most valued aspects of our civilization. If you are straight, being with the person you love and getting recognized by the state for that love + all the rights that come with the recognition IS the most single most sort after and recognized value in our civilization. But apparently, if you're gay (whether you chose to be or not) then it's off limits. Nem, we've already tried the seperate but equal crap in the past. Worked great in theory until you put it to practice.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

No, I wouldn't. Self-determination is an absolute right of all men. I must, if I am to demand it for myself (and I do), protect it for all other comers. It's not my place to determine their lives by accepting arbitrary restrictions to mollify the irrational fears of stagnant minds.New ways make most folks uncomfortable. Once folks discover that they aren't required to do anything differently themselves they get over it quickly enough. Do you know how hard it is getting over having committed suicide in the 10^th grade because you were a homosexual? Speaking of, how much gay porn do you watch to be so up on the differences between straight and gay sexual practices. I stick to lesbian porn. Then I don't have to see the naked guys at all. Ick.By the bye, your posts are great. No, really, I envy you, dude. I work so hard to make my posts verge upon the absurd and you get all the way there with such seeming ease.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

By the way, here is an interesting MSNBC article.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

quote:

---

LONDON - Gay men and straight women share some characteristics in the area of the brain responsible for emotion, mood and anxiety, researchers said on Monday in a study highlighting the potential biological underpinning of sexuality.

​

Brain scans also showed the same symmetry among lesbians and straight men, the researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

​

“The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior,” the researchers from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute wrote. “Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.”

​

A number of studies have looked at the roles genetic, biological and environmental factors play in sexual orientation but little evidence exists that any plays an all-important role. Many scientists believe both nature and nurture play a part.

​

Brain scans of 90 volunteers showed that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women were slightly asymmetric with the right hemisphere slightly larger than the left, Ivanka Savic and Pers Lindstrom wrote. The brains of gay men and heterosexual women were not.

​

Then they measured blood flow to the amygdala ” the area key for the “fight-or-flight” response ” and found it was wired in a similar fashion in gay men and heterosexual women as well as lesbians and heterosexual men.

​

The researchers added that the study cannot say whether the differences in brain shape are inherited or due to exposure to hormones such as testosterone in the womb and if they are responsible for sexual orientation.

​

But this is something they plan to look at in a further study of newborn babies to see if it can help predict future sexual orientation.

​

“These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology of homosexuality,” they wrote.

---

A simple question. If they ever solve the puzzle and prove once and for all that homosexuality is biologically based, will you then STHU?

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.