Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century

And civil unions are not?

So you're against democracy?”Hoot

Democracy also has nothing to do with right and wrong. It's about keeping the largest number of people as happy as possible as often as possible.Democracy - the will of the MAJORITY - is no excuse for oppressing minorites.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm not sure why the disagreement with civil unions is so strong.Of course, if they were implemented fairly those espousing them now would go berserk. First all references to marriage would have to be removed from all laws. Marriage would be a personal custom in some subcultures with no mention or support from government. Religious positions would not automatically make one able to preside over a CU (civil union). In fact, anyone who is allowed to issue a CU would have to be licensed. Perhaps Notaries would be able to do this automatically without further licensing.In other words, the existing definition of marriage would be replaced by CU and extended to others than marriage is now.Of course, individual subcultures would be able to marry whomever they wanted. Marriage would have no special meaning other than that given it by the subcultures. All existing legal marriages would be grandfathered in and relabeled as CUs.This would be totally fair. Everyone would get all the same rights in law. All subcultures that have some attachment to the word marriage would be able to continue to offer ceremonies and call it marriage it they liked. They could set whatever criteria that they wanted to allow or disallow access to their local ceremony.Others could, of course, use the word marriage to mean participation in their own local ceremony.Those that worry about the "destruction" of marriage might want to reconsider the use of CUs in place of marriage.

What is UNEQUAL about allowing gays their equal rights to civil unions?Ringo, would you mind explaining to me how a same-sex "marriage" would be consumated. Please tell me where the genitalia go, and I'll tell you something you may not know about biological sex.”Hoot

Yes. I agree with that. My only objection to "civil unions" is making a distinction between one group of people and another.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You know what's funny? If my fiancée and I choose to have anal sex on our wedding night, the government will still recognize our marriage.Ned... I agree, civil unions for everybody would be fair. Although, if anyone is so desparate to keep gay people from getting married that they'd rather do away with all government recognition of marriage, then that says some extremely nasty things about the person in question.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

You might as well ask, "What is UNEQUAL about allowing slaves their equal rights to air?"It isn't the rights they have that count - it's the rights they are deprived of. If gay people are deprived of the right to marry it is UNEQUAL. Irrelevant. There is no government agency that polices the consumation of different-sex "marriage". Treating same-sex marriages differently would be UNEQUAL. By all means, tell us everything you know. (Or have you already?)Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't know what this cat food is all about. Please don't confuse me with more humorous posters here. I have. Let me tell you something, the last time the issue of gay rights came up at our town meeting, somebody (an senior citizen I might add) stood up and proclaimed that homosexuality causes more teenage pregnancy. The point is I have been largely ignored because people with more experience, like yourself, can make more sensational claims about the issue than I can. It's not enough. We have learned from past experience that seperate never means equal. As a matter of fact, I do listen to them more. Seniors were the people that made me go around telling gay people they were going to hell. Seniors were the people that made me condemn gay people at every debate. Seniors were the people that made me the son of a bitch that I was.I've learned to glean what I can from seniors AFTER I've filtered out all the BS you guys never learned to get rid of. I got most of what I know about car repair from my father but I virtually ignore all his bigotted views on gay, black, hispanic, etc. people.

I've NEVER heard of any marriage being annulled because one member refused to have oral or anal sex with the other.”Hoot Mon

Well, for one thing - they don't exist. At least not in the US. We do have marriage, on the other hand.

NosyNed, how is this different than total warfare?Say I have been enjoying the gym that I have been going to and other people who regularly go to this place also have been enjoying going to the place. Lately, a group of people from next town over want to sign up for membership of this gym so they could also enjoy all the good stuff in there. But we are an elitist bunch. We want this gym to be reserved strictly for in-town folks. The people in the other town argue that they should have just as much right to use the facilities and machines in that gym as we do.What you are suggesting is instead of sharing our wonderful place of workout, we torch the place and burn it to the ground and say working out is a personal thing and we all should go out and buy weight sets and workout at home.I know you have good intentions, but I see this argument as degrading to the members of our society that have been taking a lot of shit from the rest.

Irrelevant. (And don't brag about what you don't know.)How about answering the relevant posts?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're a bigot and a homophobe, HM. That's what you are.That's why every single one of your posts drips with contempt and revulsion towards gays and their defenders. It's why you think that the rest of us must be ignorant about what homosexuals do in the bedroom, and if we only knew, why, then we're come around to your eminently sensible hatred of all things queer.It's why you think that this: represents some kind of gay assault or appropriation of your "normal" culture, instead of the entirely common phenomenon of people feeling kinship and self-recognition with characters in books. (Christopher Robin Milne, A.A. Milne's son and the basis for the character, was not gay, as far as anyone can tell.) Pretty much. I had thought your brand of bigotry died with Reagan. I guess I was wrong.

That sounds like as good a reason for an anullment as any.Have you given any thought as to why you feel you've got to protect the definition of the word "marriage"... or are you now completely shifting your argument to tell us why you think being gay is bio-illogical?