# Gay Marriage Poll



## 209

Just curious as to what people here think about this topic. 

Personally, I think if it makes people happy than good for them if they want to get married. I can't imagine what it would be like if someone told me I couldnt marry my wife.

Any overly hateful responses to this will be deleted.


----------



## MM1799

Let the people vote, then live with the decision.

I have about 99999 things to worry about other than gay marriage.


----------



## rocksy1826

i'm all for it


----------



## Inspector

After I voted I was surprised by the results so far, especially considering where the question is being asked


----------



## HousingCop

Inspector said:


> After I voted I was surprised by the results so far, especially considering where the question is being asked


*That's because the people on this site are well informed on todays topics and enlightened to todays societal needs.*  
*Everybody needs somebody to love. Even KMF294.*


----------



## kwflatbed

I am _Niether for or against _but it should be left up to the voters to decide
not just the basckassachusetts politics liberals.

*Jilted! Pols leave gay-wed advocates at the altar*
By *Casey Ross*
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick suffered a stunning political defeat just two days before his inauguration yesterday when lawmakers rejected his last-ditch pleas and voted to move a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage...
» Roll call vote on gay marriage ban ballot question
» One step remains to put amendment on 2008 ballot


----------



## 4ransom

I am absolutely 100% against it.


----------



## SUOKKO

I still don't understand why people are against gay marriage? It is 2007 get over it! With all of the actual problems in the world who honestly cares about this topic? People are always going to be gay so the faster we accept it the faster people will stop talking about it!


----------



## 4ransom

SUOKKO said:


> I still don't understand why people are against gay marriage? It is 2007 get over it! With all of the actual problems in the world who honestly cares about this topic? People are always going to be gay so the faster we accept it the faster people will stop talking about it!


I have no problem with people being gay, there is nothing wrong with that, it is there choice. I do have a problem with 2 people of the same sex being able to benefit from employment benefits and tax breaks from the other person. Those benefits are for the people who engage in a healthy family relationship.


----------



## FedCop

I take the libertarian point-of-view on gay marriage, which is to advocate for personal liberty. I understand that many people oppose gay marriage based on religious beliefs. However, this issue is about rights being granted to homosexuals, by the government, not by the church or religious leaders. If you separate the two points-of-view, you can see the equal rights argument for gay marriage.


----------



## SOT

I look at it from an entirely different point of view.

This is one more special interest that wants some form of benefit based on an alleged discrimination. Just ask for a benefits package for gays, then the disenfranchised illegals, then people that have blond hair etc and so on. Marriage to get benefits, is just a scam...it's not marriage.

Sad to say, you are different, you are not the norm, and I'm not sure why that should get you some sort of benefit.

Interestingly enough, Clintoon and his administration figured it out for the Feds.


----------



## rocksy1826

4ransom said:


> I have no problem with people being gay, there is nothing wrong with that, it is there choice. I do have a problem with 2 people of the same sex being able to benefit from employment benefits and tax breaks from the other person. Those benefits are for the people who engage in a healthy family relationship.


if you view marriage as something that is just about employment benefits and tax breaks then i pity you. Marriage is about love and commitment to each other. Not benefits. Yes, some do abuse marriage and make it about things like benefits.... but that happens in the hetrosexual world just as much. It's really disapointing to read your view of marriage.

making it all about the financial and health benefits that may or may not come with it instead of make me very concerned about the priorities of society. This entire controversy keeps making it about money and benefits instead of what it's really supposed to be about. Yes, some people (straight and gay) marry for the wrong reasons. Most marry because they honestly believe they love each other and will be happily married.... even if they are wrong and end up divorced. Stop cheapening the concept of marriage by making it about the financial benefits to it.

you do realize that there are plenty of gay couples that raise children together. and they are perfectly well-adjusted children and have healthy family relationships.

i've seen... and i'm sure you have as well... enough families that have incredibly dysfunctional, abusive components to them that I will never look down on people that legitimately love each other wanting to form a family... no matter what sex they are. Love is love. People seem to be much happier in life when they have it. Happy people are more productive and more caring to other people.

with all the screwed up, horrific things that go on in families and outside of families? i just don't understand how someone can be against two people who love each other and want to commit to each other. Marriage has a romantic, commitment factor to it that some really desire. The titles of husband or wife carry something that has a deeper meaning to it. Denying it to some couples and not others is just ridiculous.

Those of you that are happily married, think about when and why you decided you wanted to marry the other person. I'm assuming and hoping it wasn't anything about getting health insurance or tax breaks. I'm assuming it was due to love for the other person. No matter what jokes you guys make about how having a wife is like having a jailer... i am hoping and pretty sure you do love your spouse. Why would you stay otherwise? Think of the happiness you have or had felt from your marriages. I doubt you can't find any. Why deny that happiness to two other people that are in love just because they're of the same sex?

My parents have been married for over 30 years and it is beyond obvious that they still are very much in love, still feel desire for each other (god i wish i didn't know that) and would be lost without each other. I see how they clearly feel about each other and how much being together helps them be happy. I see how proudly my father introduces my mother to people as his wife and my mother introduces my father as her husband. I see how they miss each other when they are apart and look to each other for comfort when something is bothering them. They are in love. They got married. They are happy.

what if my parents were a gay couple? they'd still be as happy and in love with each other. they'd still be lost without each other. They'd still be just as proud introducing each other to people as their spouses.

Why be against it? I applaud anyone that truly loves and is dedicated to another.


----------



## sweeper20

Thats a fantastic post, Rocksy! I applaud you.


----------



## Andy0921

I like it when its two 20 y/o ****** with blonde hair and a nice rack making out on my t.v. screen...


----------



## rocksy1826

andy0921 said:


> I like it when its two 20 y/o ****** with blonde hair and a nice rack making out on my t.v. screen...


typical andy


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

30 years ago , being gay was concidered abnormal by the vast majority and in many states could get you arrested or insitutionalized. since then they incrementally convinced the public through movies, tv, music, and the schools thats its not . I find it interesting that the same thing is happening with groups like nambla. trying (so far unsucsessfully) to eliminate incest and statutory age laws because WHO ARE WE TO STOP TWO PEOPLE FROM LOVING EACH OTHER to be together.


----------



## rocksy1826

justanotherparatrooper said:


> 30 years ago , being gay was concidered abnormal by the vast majority and in many states could get you arrested or insitutionalized. since then they incrementally convinced the public through movies, tv, music, and the schools thats its not . I find it interesting that the same thing is happening with groups like nambla. trying (so far unsucsessfully) to eliminate incest and statutory age laws because WHO ARE WE TO STOP TWO PEOPLE FROM LOVING EACH OTHER to be together.


i knew someone would use the nambla argument.

the difference is that with pedophilia? it's not consentual. children are victims and not consenting to those relationships.  not the same whatsoever. pedophilia is abuse.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

ok what about an adult woman or man and theyre child of legal age? And who decides at what age consent is given? wasnt long ago 12 and 13 years old was a common age to marry. And nowa days kids are " sexualized" at a much earlier age. When I was 12 it girls were still "icky and gross" now you see kids having bf /gf relationships at 8 and 9 years old. women buying thongs for 7 yr olds. Time changes perception...what the homosexual comunity was counting on and the pediphiles as well.


----------



## rocksy1826

justanotherparatrooper said:


> ok what about an adult woman or man and theyre child of legal age? And who decides at what age consent is given? wasnt long ago 12 and 13 years old was a common age to marry. And nowa days kids are " sexualized" at a much earlier age. When I was 12 it girls were still "icky and gross" now you see kids having bf /gf relationships at 8 and 9 years old. women buying thongs for 7 yr olds. Time changes perception...what the homosexual comunity was counting on and the pediphiles as well.


guess what? this isn't the debate. the debate is same sex marriage. nobody is talking about kids screwing and all that. we're talking about if two consenting adults that love each other should be able to marry.

this seems to be where the argument always goes. using incest and child abuse and comparing it to consenting adults. It's a whole different thing all together.

If you can't put up a decent argument one way or another about same sex marriage... then be silent. You aren't even on the same topic anymore.

just because you aren't comfortable with same sex couples doesn't make it wrong. guess what? i'm not comfortable with really ugly people kissing in public. Doesn't make it wrong.

I'm also kinda weirded seeing two people with down syndrome getting married. BUT THAT'S MY OWN PROBLEM.

It doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it immoral. Just becaue I think it's a little bizarre or creepy doesn't mean i think it's wrong.

a persons relationship with their parent is designed so that having a sexual relationship with the parent completely screws up the natural mental progress of the child, EVEN IF THE CHILD IS GROWN UP NOW. Sexuality and parental roles are not designed to be combined because there are PROVEN negative effects.

get over your insecure fears and at LEAST argue on the same topic without dragging in child abuse because you can't find a leg to stand on. Give a good fight that's actually on topic with relevent points.


----------



## Killjoy

I agree with Rocksy on this one, with all the screwed-up, dysfunctional hetero marriages out there, how can anyone say with a straight face that marriage is a SACRED institution? Besides one applies to the government for a marriage license, so therefore it is a legal state, not a moral state. If someone is happy with someone else of the same sex, I'm certainly not going to stand in their way.


----------



## rocksy1826

for Andy:


----------



## SOT

Duhhh. If asked the majority of gays that advocate marriage rights in MA do it for one of two reasons:

1. To secure the benefits associated with marriage (insurance, life, medical care of spouse, adoption)

So yes I do feel very sad for the majority of gays who have no concept of love but are looking for more access to health insurance and benefits afforded "married couples".

2. To assert an ab normal relationship style ont he rest of the world. If it's considered "marriage" it's more "normal".

Sorry to say no matter how you slice it, it ain't marriage. Not even close. It doesn't surprise me that one of the most F'd up states in the US would consider this a "right" or some sort of constitutional issue. 
Billy having to daddies or two mommies, is sad enough, let alone trying to pretend it's marriage.

Lastly, creating a form of marriage, that will have no legal basis anywhere else in the US. asserts a states right over the fedeal gov't and the sovereign powers of others states. It's sad that MA can't get it's own shit together yet it feels it can now assert it's laws on other states.


----------



## kwflatbed

New Jersey is running right along the same lines.


----------



## rocksy1826

to make an argument for the states to really feel is important it is necessary to make your argument be more than "because we're in love and we want the title". People constantly make this about the benefits and finances instead of the basic concept of what marriage is supposed to be about. 

My older sister is a lesbian. She is not married. Her ex girlfriend and she are both successful with good benefits on their own. They discussed marriage. Why? for the same reason straight people do. Wanting that whole aspect of a continuing step of the relationship. I know several married, gay couples. None went about it for the reason of benefits.

To make a legitimate case to the state, more has to be said than "but i wannnttt it!". Romance isn't factored into politics. they have to show legitimate harm being done in some way to put a fire under the asses of people so they feel that the discrimination is truly damaging to homosexual couples.

Maybe it's the whole male/female thing here but I seem to be the only one here that sees the possible loss of gay marriage as tragic for the romantic factors of it. While I am not gay? I know several that would be devastated by it. This is why I said to try to stop thinking of this as all about money and benefits and think about your feelings for your spouses and what you would feel if you weren't able to have married them because of something like this. 

This whole controversy is more about emotion, love and affection than logic... but it is constantly trying to be battled out with logic and finances. I wish people would get their priorities together and stop making everything in life about money.


----------



## Spart12

To all of those saying that "Billy having two dads is bad enough" or are trying to say that two same sex individuals is not a healthy family environment....I want to know by what expeirance you say that? The parent who raised me is homosexual so I have a real perspective on this, and I can tell you that nothing about her being homosexual affected me in a bad way. The only negative I have felt is when OTHER PEOPLE say that they way I grew up wasnt healthy or that it was wrong, especially when they have no basis to make such a statement. I didnt turn out gay, nor am I some type of lowlife degenerate.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

My argument is pretty simple, this is simply changing the "standards" of what society as a whole generally believes is right or wrong. I just wonder where the line gets drawn. Btw I do have friends who are gay and its a topic thats come up...I still argue the same position.


----------



## rocksy1826

justanotherparatrooper said:


> My argument is pretty simple, this is simply changing the "standards" of what society as a whole generally believes is right or wrong. I just wonder where the line gets drawn. Btw I do have friends who are gay and its a topic thats come up...I still argue the same position.


your ******* is showing a little. rethink it. it's not that simple. it's totally different things. you can't lump everything together just because it's been frowned on in the past.

your logic says that we should still be opressive minorities as well because it's what we once did.

evolution. it happens


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one hun.


----------



## LandShark9C1

I would vote for gay marriage; would also vote for gay "unions" in order to keep "marriage" between a man and a woman. In fact I don't see what the fuss is some gay people have about not calling it a marriage. It's like, what difference does it make what you call it, you are getting the same thing. right?

I don't see what the big deal is, I think people who are gay are born that way, I don t think its thier "fualt" they happen to be gay, so if they want to get married it's no skin off my back. Its not like marriage is so sacred these days. I know some people who are on marriage 3 or 4.
.02


----------



## pahapoika

100% against it 

and if it passes then i want to marry a german shepard !


----------



## SOT

Yes gay can be a genetic defect, it can be a choice. Just ask any number of girls in college, Ms. America pageant winners, and movie and music stars.

QUOTE=LandShark9C1]I would vote for gay marriage; would also vote for gay "unions" in order to keep "marriage" between a man and a woman. In fact I don't see what the fuss is some gay people have about not calling it a marriage. It's like, what difference does it make what you call it, you are getting the same thing. right?

I don't see what the big deal is, I think people who are gay are born that way, I don t think its thier "fualt" they happen to be gay, so if they want to get married it's no skin off my back. Its not like marriage is so sacred these days. I know some people who are on marriage 3 or 4.
.02[/QUOTE]


----------



## Guest

This should be the definition of slippery slope. 

First, gay marriage. 

Then.....polygamy. What's next? 

Why can't I marry my sister? My mother? My grandmother? My father?

Why can't I marry a sheep?

Doesn't anyone else see the explosively dangerous precedent this sets?


----------



## 209

Delta784 said:


> This should be the definition of slippery slope.
> 
> First, gay marriage.
> 
> Then.....polygamy. What's next?
> 
> Why can't I marry my sister? My mother? My grandmother? My father?
> 
> Why can't I marry a sheep?
> 
> Doesn't anyone else see the explosively dangerous precedent this sets?


I think you are making a big jump that is a bit ridiculous. As you know marrying imediate family carries genetic reprocussions on a fetus where as another living things wellbeing could be put at risk from this act. Secondly, animals cannot consent and that would carry genetic issues as well. Same sex partners obviously cannot reproduce and are consenting adults, no harm to anyone.

So with that said. Why do you care? A gay person isnt going to pop out of a corner and force you to marry them.

Yes you can argue the fact that marriage orginates from religion and religion does not condone same sex marriage. Is that just the catholic, protostant, religion's, what about hindu or native american, hell some people don't believe in religion at all. Isnt there freedom of religion in this country, so that really shouldnt' matter. Because what are you doing exactly?? You are pushing your own(popular) religious beliefs onto others and forcing them to follow them. For a country founded on freedom I find it very ridiculous that this is even an argument. Well I guess that the constitution just doesnt apply to gay and lesbian people. It didnt apply for black people for the longest time either so maybe we could get our asses in gear and fix this problem. We could start talking about gays in the military but thats a different thread all in itself.

Gay people oooooooo scary, keep away I dont want to catch their gayness. FEAR....That is why gays are outcasted. Just like the blacks, the jews, the so called witches, etc. etc.. With this thinking in mind we might as well re institute slavery and the jim crow laws.


----------



## Guest

209 said:


> I think you are making a big jump that is a bit ridiculous.


As recently as 20 years ago, the thought of gay marriage was equally as ridiculous.



209 said:


> As you know marrying imediate family carries genetic reprocussions on a fetus where as another living things wellbeing could be put at risk from this act.


Lots of people get married, but never reproduce. What if I get an irreversible vasectomy, or I'm permanently sterile? Who are you to impose your moral beliefs on me, that I can't marry my mother?

And what about marrying my brother or father? We couldn't possibly reproduce, so where's the possible harm? Do you believe that brothers should be able to get married?



209 said:


> Secondly, animals cannot consent and that would carry genetic issues as well.


Who are you to tell me what my animal is telling me? I know my animals better than anyone!!



209 said:


> Same sex partners obviously cannot reproduce and are consenting adults, no harm to anyone.


I know you're going to try to dodge the question, so I'll ask it a second time, just to make it all the more obvious;

Since they couldn't possibly reproduce, should brothers be able to get married? How about fathers & sons?



209 said:


> So with that said. Why do you care? A gay person isnt going to pop out of a corner and force you to marry them.


It's all about an overall breakdown of societal values. This country is circling the bowl, with the breakdown of traditional values being the #1 culprit. As I said, slippery slope.



209 said:


> Yes you can argue the fact that marriage orginates from religion and religion does not condone same sex marriage. Is that just the catholic, protostant, religion's, what about hindu or native american, hell some people don't believe in religion at all. Isnt there freedom of religion in this country, so that really shouldnt' matter. Because what are you doing exactly?? You are pushing your own(popular) religious beliefs onto others and forcing them to follow them. For a country founded on freedom I find it very ridiculous that this is even an argument.


Guess again, junior. I haven't been to church in so long, I'd probably be struck down by lightning if I did. I didn't mention religion, you did. It's about societal values, not religious. Granted, they are based on religious principles, but they served us pretty damn well over the last 200+ years, and now that they're being eroded, society is going to hell in a handbasket.

Coincidence? I think not.



209 said:


> Well I guess that the constitution just doesnt apply to gay and lesbian people. It didnt apply for black people for the longest time either so maybe we could get our asses in gear and fix this problem. We could start talking about gays in the military but thats a different thread all in itself.


That's an invalid comparison. Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual identity is among the most powerful of human characteristics.

As for the constitution, it says whatever the people want it to say. It's fascinating to me that the liberals are trying their damndest in this state to block a vote of the PEOPLE on banning gay marriage, because they know it would surely pass. They're subverting the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (state constitution) and the rights of the people in order to further their own polticial agenda. It's simply disgusting.



209 said:


> Gay people oooooooo scary, keep away I dont want to catch their gayness. FEAR....


You're afraid of gays? I'm sorry to hear that, because I'm certainly not.

That was a pretty sad, ham-handed attempt to take one out of the liberal playbook.....call your opponent a homophobe. Nice try.



209 said:


> That is why gays are outcasted. Just like the blacks, the jews, the so called witches, etc. etc.. With this thinking in mind we might as well re institute slavery and the jim crow laws.


As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.

Simply pathetic.


----------



## 209

Delta784 said:


> Who are you to tell me what my animal is telling me? I know my animals better than anyone!!
> 
> *Ill go with science onthis one, Beastmaster.*
> 
> I know you're going to try to dodge the question, so I'll ask it a second time, just to make it all the more obvious;
> 
> Since they couldn't possibly reproduce, should brothers be able to get married? How about fathers & sons?
> 
> *Point taken, question dodged.*
> 
> It's all about an overall breakdown of societal values. This country is circling the bowl, with the breakdown of traditional values being the #1 culprit. As I said, slippery slope.
> 
> *Sounds like your saying gay people are a contributing factor to the downfall of society. *
> 
> Guess again, junior. I haven't been to church in so long, I'd probably be struck down by lightning if I did. I didn't mention religion, you did. It's about societal values, not religious. Granted, they are based on religious principles, but they served us pretty damn well over the last 200+ years, and now that they're being eroded, society is going to hell in a handbasket.
> 
> Coincidence? I think not.
> 
> *Well, Old man, I realize you didnt bring up religion but it always gets brought up one way or another (God striking down gay people). What about the gay child molesting priests( i know another topic another time). I do agree that religion has done very well for society since its been around with some exceptions. And yeah society is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to drugs, lack of good mentors, and parents not doing their job, (among many other things, but I would say those are the big ones).*
> 
> That's an invalid comparison. Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual identity is among the most powerful of human characteristics.
> 
> As for the constitution, it says whatever the people want it to say.
> It's fascinating to me that the liberals are trying their damndest in this state to block a vote of the PEOPLE on banning gay marriage, because they know it would surely pass. They're subverting the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (state constitution) and the rights of the people in order to further their own polticial agenda. It's simply disgusting.
> *So can I vote to imprison all gay people because of their sexual preference. I mean your saying we should vote, should we be able to vote on everything. What if we vote to remove freedom of speech from the constitution. Is that okay.*
> 
> You're afraid of gays? I'm sorry to hear that, because I'm certainly not.
> 
> *Didnt say I was afraid of gays.*
> 
> That was a pretty sad, ham-handed attempt to take one out of the liberal playbook.....call your opponent a homophobe. Nice try.
> 
> *The point was that history shows people outcast those they are afraid of, the unknowns.*
> 
> As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.


*First off, apples to moonrocks. Never heard that before but its funny.*
*Second, I'm far from a Sharpton fan, but the reason for the race argument was this. Generally speaking, we oust a group of people that are not like the majority of the population and impose laws, restriction on equal rights, and nearly spit on them because of it.*
*Lastly, I did not comment on the thought that I was going to win or loose, just that I wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. Nothing like a good debate.*

Latest Reputation Received ThreadDateComment







Gay Marriage Poll01-04-2007 03:07No voting in the USA? 
No I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote at all....But this topic is one of which should be recognized as a right under the constitution. Why isn't it your right to enter into a legal binding, loving, contract with a same sex partner, when both are consenting adults.

I dont feel as if it is my right to beable to step in and vote saying NO you have no right to enjoy the pursuit of happieness of marriage because you are not a man and woman you are a man and man or woman and woman.


----------



## rocksy1826

Delta, you missed my statement about how taking a parent/child relationship and turning it romantic/sexual is PROVEN to have negative mental effects on the child.

There is a huge difference. Stick to the topic at hand. Same-sex marriage. Not animals, not incest.

Going off topic like that is just grasping at straws to find reasons that it isn't ok. The topic is same-sex marriage.



Delta784 said:


> As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.
> 
> Simply pathetic.


no it isn't. it's another thing that people were afraid of. people discriminated against minorities and realized later it was wrong to.

and do you see that by arguing about beastiality and incest (totally off topic) that you are showing the same intellectual bankrupt argument that you are claiming 209 is? Pot calling kettle....

Pointing out Jim Crow and slavery is valid due to the fact that people were wrong to discriminate and abuse people for being different colors.... and we realized we were wrong.

There is no harm if same-sex couples marry. There IS harm in the things you are stating. Knock off straying topics due to being "intellectually bankrupt" and state what the percieved harm of same-sex couples marrying is.

Refusing to change and grow is what leaves society so miserable and hateful towards each other.

I'm disapointed in your argument, Delta. i thought you were more compassionate and open-minded than that.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Delta is trying to make the same point I am...at what point does society say something is unacceptable? the proponents of gay 'marriage' just refuse to answer it because to do so undercuts theyre argument.


----------



## rocksy1826

justanotherparatrooper said:


> Delta is trying to make the same point I am...at what point does society say something is unacceptable? the proponents of gay 'marriage' just refuse to answer it because to do so undercuts theyre argument.


and your argument is still ridiculous because of the fact that you have to go totally off topic.

by your logic, we should never change anything because it opens up changing everything. By your argument, things in the past that were changed due to society realizing that discriminating against it was wrong, should be changed back to the prejuidice ways because realizing and overcoming our wrongs just leaves it open for people to molest children and rape dogs.

my point is that you're saying that nothing should ever change due to possibly leaving us open to changing other things.

Your argument says that society is unable to decide what is truly harmful and what isn't. You have not once stated how same-sex marriage itself will harm society. Saying it opens us up to allowing incest is off-topic completely.

i'm calling you out, insisting that you state why same-sex marriage itself is going to harm society. You continue to evade the question by going off-topic and bringing it things that are not the question right now.

if you can't argue on topic, stfu.

I'm truly sorry you are so terrified of change. That's what it boils down to. You are arguing that we shouldn't ever make changes because then ANYTHING can be changed.


----------



## kwflatbed

The missing link is all of this has contributated to the moral decay of this country.

The more liberal this country gets the further down the tube it goes.

All of our forefathers would be in disgust at the way this country has turned out.

From an old mans point of view it gets worse with every new generation and it 
will destroy itself and the world.


----------



## mikey742

Good posts Rocksy i do agree with you.


----------



## FedCop

kwflatbed,
Politically speaking, I like to think of myself as "middle-of-the-road." However, since you started ranting about "the more liberal this country gets, the further down the tube it goes," I have a few suggestions for you: #1. Refuse Social Security, since it was created by a liberal, FDR. #2. Refuse Medicare, since it was created by a liberal, LBJ. #3. If you receive overtime, work an 8 hour day/ 40 hour work week, and receive the Quinn Bill, STOP immediately.... they were all created by liberals.


----------



## 4ransom

Spart12 said:


> To all of those saying that "Billy having two dads is bad enough" or are trying to say that two same sex individuals is not a healthy family environment....I want to know by what expeirance you say that? The parent who raised me is homosexual so I have a real perspective on this, and I can tell you that nothing about her being homosexual affected me in a bad way. The only negative I have felt is when OTHER PEOPLE say that they way I grew up wasnt healthy or that it was wrong, especially when they have no basis to make such a statement. I didnt turn out gay, nor am I some type of lowlife degenerate.


So on this arguement you think it is fair to a child to be ridiculed by others for something he/she has no control over? Imagine being 10 years old in elementery school and being constantly questioned and ridiculed by other kids about having gay parents. People constantly asking why. Having no father to show up at father/son softball games. Having no mother for mother/daughter sleepovers.

When the child becomes a teen and starts dating, yet has difficulty because everyone thinks he hasto turn out like his parents. Other peers afraid to go over his house to play video games because his gay parents may be there.

These problems do exist, no matter how good the parents do to raise there child right. There will always be cruel people who make fun and alienate. This is made even more difficult by a choice made by 2 people that the child has no control over. This affects the child in a bad way.


----------



## kwflatbed

FedCop said:


> kwflatbed,
> Politically speaking, I like to think of myself as "middle-of-the-road." However, since you started ranting about "the more liberal this country gets, the further down the tube it goes," I have a few suggestions for you: #1. Refuse Social Security, since it was created by a liberal, FDR. #2. Refuse Medicare, since it was created by a liberal, LBJ. #3. If you receive overtime, work an 8 hour day/ 40 hour work week, and receive the Quinn Bill, STOP immediately.... they were all created by liberals.


These may have been enacted during thier time in office but they were not the creators.

Social security was designed and put forth by the Fraternal Order Of Eagles.
Medicare was not designed by LBJ it was enacted during his time as President.


----------



## Guest

As I get older I have come to believe that homosexuality is in a persons being, they have no choice to be gay or not, some studies say about 10-15 percent. People left handed, color blind or with cancer really don't choose it either. Although all those things are not in the "normal" they do occur. If my premise is right then if two people of the same sex fall in love they should have the same chance of being happy as a "normal" couple. Maybe people would be able to take it better if this was called a civil union as some countries do. I think gay spokes people do have a point when they say a gay couple doesn't have protection in their rights as a couple such as banking,medical,benefits and other legal rights. 
I too worry about that slippery slope, who knows what people will think 50 years from now. Maybe the law could be written, a civil union is one human being to another human being. There must be some way to be fair to gay couples without giving in to anything goes.


----------



## Guest

rocksy1826 said:


> Delta, you missed my statement about how taking a parent/child relationship and turning it romantic/sexual is PROVEN to have negative mental effects on the child.


I'm talking about two consenting adults. If I'm 25 years old, and I want to marry my 45 year-old mother, I'm no longer a child.

So, I ask again....who are you to tell me I can't marry my mother if we're both adults?

And no one yet has answered the big one;

Why can't I marry my brother? We can't reproduce, we're both consenting adults, and there is no issue of parent/child dynamics.

So.......WHY NOT???????

SOMEONE ANSWER ME!!!!!



rocksy1826 said:


> There is a huge difference. Stick to the topic at hand. Same-sex marriage. Not animals, not incest.


That is the topic at hand, how things can (and will) get totally ridiculous, once gay marriage has a foothold in society. Sodomy was taboo 30 years ago. Who's to say incest isn't the next step?

Again.....someone who is favor of gay marriage please tell me why I can't marry my brother. Who are you to force your morals on me???



rocksy1826 said:


> Going off topic like that is just grasping at straws to find reasons that it isn't ok. The topic is same-sex marriage.


Sorry you don't like the facts, because they're devastating to your argument. I've laid it all out, I'm sorry if you don't like what lies in the future, but by supporting gay marriage, you're helping to make it happen.



rocksy1826 said:


> no it isn't. it's another thing that people were afraid of. people discriminated against minorities and realized later it was wrong to.
> 
> and do you see that by arguing about beastiality and incest (totally off topic) that you are showing the same intellectual bankrupt argument that you are claiming 209 is? Pot calling kettle....
> 
> Pointing out Jim Crow and slavery is valid due to the fact that people were wrong to discriminate and abuse people for being different colors.... and we realized we were wrong.


Do you see "Gays Only" water fountains? When was the last time an openly gay person was refused service at a lunch counter? Forced to sit at the back of the bus? When was the last time you saw gays being forced to pick cotton? Refused the right to vote?

Comparing gay marriage to the struggle of black Americans is positively insulting to the Civil Rights movement.




rocksy1826 said:


> There is no harm if same-sex couples marry. There IS harm in the things you are stating. Knock off straying topics due to being "intellectually bankrupt" and state what the percieved harm of same-sex couples marrying is.


Where is the harm in someone marrying their parent, provided they don't reproduce? Where is the harm in two brothers getting married?

The harm is (you know this but don't want to admit it) that it would lead to a total breakdown of civilized society.

Well......guess what? Gay marriage is the first step.



rocksy1826 said:


> Refusing to change and grow is what leaves society so miserable and hateful towards each other.


I hate very few people, and none of them are gay. What I hate is the continual erosion of societal values that is ruining this country. I truly fear the country my children are going to inherit.



rocksy1826 said:


> I'm disapointed in your argument, Delta. i thought you were more compassionate and open-minded than that.


After almost 20 years of dealing with sides of society very few people see, I don't see how I could have any other opinion.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Well said delta, They just refuse to look at the larger picture.


----------



## FedCop

If you read the history books, you will learn that these same arguments have been made by Southern Democrats, concerning the integration of blacks into the military and interracial marriage. I guess I am still waiting for the armageddon.


----------



## Guest

FedCop said:


> If you read the history books, you will learn that these same arguments have been made by Southern Democrats, concerning the integration of blacks into the military and interracial marriage. I guess I am still waiting for the armageddon.


It's not a valid comparison, because as I've already mentioned, skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic, while sexual identity is probably the most powerful human characteristic.

By the way, do you know who coined the above phrase?

Colin Powell.

Comparing gay marriage to the Civil Rights move is intellectually bankrupt, and a cheap, lazy way out. I'd much rather see you try to refute the points I've made about it being a slippery slope. I'd at least have respect for you if you even tried, instead of hauling out the tired old carcass of the race card.

And....I'm still waiting for a gay marriage proponent to tell me why two brothers or two sisters shouldn't be able to get married.........<crickets chirping>


----------



## FedCop

Delta784,
First of all, the points that you have made are ignorant and deserve no response. Secondly, being a heterosexual white male, I can't play the race card. However, for the sake of discussion, what is to stop you from dating your brother or your 45 year old mother now? The answer is nothing, but society's mores. Marriage is a civil or religious recognition of one's love for another. Your argument lacks depth of understanding the topic. Does traditional marriage stop you from marrying your sister? Your argument collapses under it's own weight!


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

FedCop said:


> Delta784,
> First of all, the points that you have made are ignorant and deserve no response. Secondly, being a heterosexual white male, I can't play the race card. However, for the sake of discussion, what is to stop you from dating your brother or your 45 year old mother now? The answer is nothing, but society's mores. Marriage is a civil or religious recognition of one's love for another. Your argument lacks depth of understanding the topic. Does traditional marriage stop you from marrying your sister? Your argument collapses under it's own weight!


exactly the point Delta is trying to make... that the only thing that makes it wrong for a brother marrying his brother or dad or mom is that at this time society, as a whole, would look down on it....just like 30 years ago with the gay marriage argument.if you had brought up the subject back then you wouldve been ridiculed as an idiot (Society is now more...enlightened).
as to your last statement, Nothin is stopping gays and Lesbians from getting 'married' now. Many of the liberal churches routinely do it. What you want is societal exceptance of it.


----------



## FedCop

Ok, so if we agree that the only thing that stops incest now is society, then what is the issue? I don't see how gay marriage leads to incest. Based on your argument, every homosexual man lusts after his brother and every heterosexual man lusts after his sister...? Also, I believe that gays would like to be able to obtain a marriage certificate, which is only issued by their town.


----------



## dcs2244

I approach this issue from a libertarian standpoint. If we are going to accept "gay marriage", then we must also accept polygamy, buggery and even adult/child love (supported by Kinsey because children are "sexual beings"). Anything else is hypocrisy.

Even if we regard unions of a non-sexual nature: why shouldn't a brother and sister who share a household not be able to leave the remainder of their pensions to one another, or put their sibling on their healthcare plan, just as a married couple is allowed to do?

The purpose of a marriage is the continuation of the species. PERIOD. It is not about "love", romantic or otherwise. If a heterosexual couple is going to whelp, it is a marriage. If any other couples/groups are incapable of whelping (through sexual congress, not to include a laboratory)...it is a union.

In any event, I am neither for or against: just shut-up...we're about to lose western civilization to the satan worshipping mooselimbs. Therefore, this is a non-issue as all the homosexuals will be stoned to death when allahs people take over...or, if western civilization beats the odds and triumphs over islam, we will be able to continue our study of the human genome and identify the genetics of homosexuality and abort those fetus' before they are born.

Food for thought:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1008


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

thats the bottom line, they want a certificate stating that theyre married and that society accepts it, something that wouldnt have had any chance at all 30 years ago is now within theyre grasp. NOT because society has said you have our blessing but because of a small majority of judges decided so.
so....where will we be in 10, 20,30 years, now that theyres a precedent ? You guys keep saying that Delta and myself are arguing the absurd. Guess time will tell.


----------



## 4ransom

49 other states recognize that it is wrong... must massachusetts be that ignorant and believe they are the only ones who see it right?


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

4ransom said:


> 49 other states recognize that it is wrong... must massachusetts be that ignorant and believe they are the only ones who see it right?


 only because of a one judge majority on the ma. supreme court!


----------



## KindaConfused

Same-sex marriage is about EQUAL rights, not special rights. So the reason you can't marry your brother or mother is because NO ONE can. If you want to marry your mother or brother, then you are looking for SPECIAL rights. What two same-sex people are looking for is to be allowed to marry ONE other CONSENTING ADULT of their choosing within the bounds of the same law that two hetero-sexual people can marry.

So no, this doesn't lead to polygamy...beastiality...etc.... those are called scare tactics.

And this would be the least of the forefather's issues of what has happened in the US over the past 200+ years once they see how states rights have been slowly eroded by the federal government.


----------



## dcs2244

How nice it is to live in Massachusetts and be ruled by a judicial oligarchy! Since our cowardly representatives in the General Court won't legislate "gay marriage", I say let the people vote on it.

Because, as you know, it's more important to gorge oneself at the public trough than to legislate...the better to remain neutral and have the lemmings re-elect one. Let the courts rule by caveat! Just understand that judicial findings are a two-edged sword: someday the balance of power will swing and perhaps your ox will be gored.

</IMG>


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

KindaConfused said:


> Same-sex marriage is about EQUAL rights, not special rights. So the reason you can't marry your brother or mother is because NO ONE can. If you want to marry your mother or brother, then you are looking for SPECIAL rights. What two same-sex people are looking for is to be allowed to marry ONE other CONSENTING ADULT of their choosing within the bounds of the same law that two hetero-sexual people can marry.
> 
> So no, this doesn't lead to polygamy...beastiality...etc.... those are called scare tactics.
> 
> And this would be the least of the forefather's issues of what has happened in the US over the past 200+ years once they see how states rights have been slowly eroded by the federal government.


 Oh in that case not a problem.. as I understand it any concenting adult can marry another consenting adult of the opposite sex ( that would be "wothiin the bounds of the same law that two hetrosexuals can marry).


----------



## KindaConfused

justanotherparatrooper said:


> Oh in that case not a problem.. as I understand it any concenting adult can marry another consenting adult of the opposite sex ( that would be "wothiin the bounds of the same law that two hetrosexuals can marry).


 No, as I understand it, one consenting adult can marry any one consenting adult of their choice in MA. I guess you haven't kept up with the law.

Now if you want to argue up to the SJC that you can marry your dog, go for it. But I didn't know that #1) animals can consent and #2) that animals weren't considered property in MA anymore.

So by the crazy logic you employ, if you can marry your dog, and dog is property, then I should be able to marry my car! Health insurance for my car! That would be awesome. Just a co-pay and I can have a health check of the car. Anything major goes wrong, like if it's leaking fluid because I stuck it too hard, I can get it antibiotics or something!


----------



## dcs2244

Hey, Kinda...

"...nose in the tent..." and all that! Whether it's right or not...that is going to be the result of this judicial edict. It will be used to justify things you may not find palatable. I'm willing to wager that you'll make many of the same arguments against buggery, child/adult sex, polygamy and incest that have been suggested here about "gay marriage"

"Civil Union"...for everyone, not just 'gays" YES. "Gay marriage"...NO! Let's just be honest and get it all done in one swell foop. Unions for everyone!


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

No ,Ive kept my argument to human beings and so far Ma is the only state to actually call it marriage. I live in NH and so far weve managed to resist adopting Ma attitudes but alas the liberal mentality is leaching its way up here but even in Ma the gay marriage proponents are in the minority. the thing is no matter that you call it marriage, most people just dont see it that way.
Its similar to that trans gendered bs. No matter how you cut it...you are what you were when you were born either a male or female. surgery changes nothing other then mutilating what God created.


----------



## Spart12

4ransom said:


> So on this arguement you think it is fair to a child to be ridiculed by others for something he/she has no control over? Imagine being 10 years old in elementery school and being constantly questioned and ridiculed by other kids about having gay parents. People constantly asking why. Having no father to show up at father/son softball games. Having no mother for mother/daughter sleepovers.
> 
> When the child becomes a teen and starts dating, yet has difficulty because everyone thinks he hasto turn out like his parents. Other peers afraid to go over his house to play video games because his gay parents may be there.
> 
> These problems do exist, no matter how good the parents do to raise there child right. There will always be cruel people who make fun and alienate. This is made even more difficult by a choice made by 2 people that the child has no control over. This affects the child in a bad way.


I dont think its fair at all for a child to be ridiculed by people at all. I can say that I was never ridiculed in a malicious way about it though. Remember, I grew up living with an openly gay parent so I speak from expeirance. I also work at a school and am aware that this does happen, though. Other people ridicule because they dont understand or chose not to. Im sure kids in the 70's were ridiculed by their peers for having a black father and a white mother, or vice versa. Still doesnt mean they shouldnt have the right to marry. You and I think of homosexuality very differently, I beleive that it is genetic, you beleive it to be a choice, so on that you and I will need to agree to disagree until definitive proof proves otherwise.


----------



## tommym27

i can't help but notice that justanotherparatrooper, can't help but refer to how 30 years ago gays were where they belonged and it was wrong and blah blah blah...just 40 years ago blacks weren't looked too kindly upon...was that right too?? just because it was accepted at one point in time as "right" doesn't mean it was right...

Who cares if they get married...the way I look at it is, heterosexuals can't get marriage right. what's the divorce rate up to now like 60%? that's real encouraging about this "sacred" vow...kids in high school break up less often. Homosexuals who are truly in love and are willing to take all of the bullshit thrown at them to be married, see if they get divorced.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

time changes perception...i just dont like the direction this is heading and so far Im still in the majority. I hope Im proven wrong as ive got kids and grandchildren. Id like to think the world will still have some standard of right and wrong in the future.


----------



## tommym27

so we'll give you some time to change your perception on this one :-D 

i just feel that this is one of those dragged out useless battles...chicken and the egg type argument. neither side understands the other and neither wants to change. makes for some fun debates ha


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

yes it does and Im pretty sure I dropped about 50 ft on some peoples opinons bout me. no matter, i 'll deal


----------



## frapmpd24

> Originally Posted by *4ransom* 49 other states recognize that it is wrong... must massachusetts be that ignorant and believe they are the only ones who see it right?





justanotherparatrooper said:


> only because of a one judge majority on the ma. supreme court!


I find it ironic that the SJC which ruled in favor of gay marriage in the first place and paved the way for marriage licenses to be issued to same sex couples, turned around and essentially spanked the legislature in their recent ruling when the law makers wanted to support gay marriage by procedurally adjourning and not allowing an opportunity for a ballot question. Equally interesting is how they made it clear in their ruling that the legislators are responsible to the people/voters, because let us remember, they're not.

The nine Justices, by way of their initial ruling condoning gay marriage, created the mess, debate, and tension around it to begin with. Then they seemingly washed their hands of it two years later by affirming the Governors opposing argument that the people should have an opportunity to vote on the issue. All this when the SJC was the catalyst for gay marriage occur in the first place.

Basically they told the legislature in their ruling, if you don't let the people vote, you risk not being re-elected... as for us, we're all set.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

"The nine Justices"...actually only 5 supported the decision


----------



## rocksy1826

delta... when your child is 25 you will still consider them to be your child.

i'm not arguing this anymore. it's too frustrating to see how closed-minded and negative people can be


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

No matter what...Your child is your child ( you always love them)and I dont believe Delta would and I KNOW I wouldnt think any less of one of our kids( in my case grandkids as well) if one of them chose a gay lifestyle. And I have had to concider it with one of my kids, thopugh so far it hasnt happened. Doesnt mean that I would change my position on the issue just as I wouldnt change my position on crime issues.


----------



## SOT

It is so simple. A marriage is between one man and one woman. If it is something else, it is not a marriage. Many may want to call it that but it's not. It should not be afforded the same protection, the same "rights", at all It should have "no rights" because it isn't a marriage. You want a civil union, go for it, you want a partnership commitment, rock on. It's just not a marriage, and it won't ever be one no matter how hard people try and redefine it.


----------



## Clouseau

Delta784 said:


> It's all about an overall breakdown of societal values. This country is circling the bowl, with the breakdown of traditional values being the #1 culprit. As I said, slippery slope.


Too late Delta. We've already circled the bowl and are on the downward spiral.

They took God and the Pledge of Allegiance out of the courts and the classroom.
The took Christ out of Christmas. The list goes on. Soon they'll be taking down the flag because some are offended. Let them keep building their mosques. Let the illegals run wild.


----------



## Home Wood

This liberal society will be the cause of death to humanity or at least America. Keep letting illegals exploit our country, welfare system to be abused and criminals let go with little to no punishment. When the History Channel did a show on armageddon, they forgot to mention liberal thinking and politics


----------



## 2-Delta

Agreed.


----------



## Guest

FedCop said:


> Delta784,
> First of all, the points that you have made are ignorant and deserve no response.


Once again, the cheap, lazy way out. You can't intelligently refute what I said, so you pretend it's beneath you. You should call Deval for a job, you'll fit right in.



FedCop said:


> Secondly, being a heterosexual white male, I can't play the race card.


You most certainly can, it's just that you being a heterosexual white male makes it all the more pathetic.



FedCop said:


> However, for the sake of discussion, what is to stop you from dating your brother or your 45 year old mother now? The answer is nothing, but society's mores.


Actually it's currently illegal, but not for long if you have your way, apparently.



FedCop said:


> Marriage is a civil or religious recognition of one's love for another. Your argument lacks depth of understanding the topic. Does traditional marriage stop you from marrying your sister? Your argument collapses under it's own weight!


Good God, you can't possibly be this dense, can you? It's so simple, a child could understand it;

Thirty years ago, the thought of gay marriage was as much an aberration as incest and bestiality are now. However, we're now having gay marriage jammed down our throats, against our will (the majority oppose it) by judicial activists, and are told it's normal.

Every time we allow the line in the sand to be erased, the easier it is to have it erased the next time. If you seriously believe that polygamy, bigamy, and a whole host of other perversions aren't on the horizon if gay marriage is allowed to stand, you have a lot to learn about human nature.


----------



## FedCop

Delta784,
Since you can't comprehend my argument, you should go back to listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for further insight. It is quite obvious those are the two sources of your tired, ignorant, bumper sticker-talking points. Furthermore, equating gay marriage to incest is the most cockamamie argument that I have ever heard. You should study the history of the topic before engaging in discussion. Lastly, since neither one of us can agree to the other's opposing view, I guess there is no need in going further with this conversation.

The bottom line is that I don't have a "dog in this fight." I take the libertarian view on gay marriage, which is to say that I believe in personal liberties and equal rights for all. If the government decides to give all the rights of marriage, but call gay marriage something different...fine. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision on this issue was accurate. The court stated that the same rights should be given to a gay couple as is given to a traditional married couple, but the court left the title of the union for the state legislature to decide.


----------



## The Mentor

If its not hurting you, dont worry about it


----------



## Guest

FedCop said:


> Since you can't comprehend my argument, you should go back to listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for further insight. It is quite obvious those are the two sources of your tired, ignorant, bumper sticker-talking points.


You don't know the first thing about me, so you should really refrain from speculating about my personal views. I listen to neither Hannity nor Limbaugh....when I do listen to the radio, it's usually sports talk. My opinions are formed from my own experiences and observations.



FedCop said:


> Furthermore, equating gay marriage to incest is the most cockamamie argument that I have ever heard. You should study the history of the topic before engaging in discussion.


Do you believe that a man should be able to marry his biological brother?

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION YOU MORAL COWARD!!!!!!!



FedCop said:


> Lastly, since neither one of us can agree to the other's opposing view, I guess there is no need in going further with this conversation.


Translation = You can't win.



FedCop said:


> The bottom line is that I don't have a "dog in this fight." I take the libertarian view on gay marriage, which is to say that I believe in personal liberties and equal rights for all. If the government decides to give all the rights of marriage, but call gay marriage something different...fine. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision on this issue was accurate. The court stated that the same rights should be given to a gay couple as is given to a traditional married couple, but the court left the title of the union for the state legislature to decide.


If you think that the courts should be the final arbiters on matters of societal values, you're even more deluded than I initially suspected.


----------



## dcs2244

Well, that was fun! For our next topic, lets discuss banning smoking in bars or talking on the telephone while driving...or some other life or death topic.

Much ado about nothing. I hardly think that western civilization is going to collapse if homosexuals aren't allowed to "marry". It may however, if such "marriages" are allowed. One commenter wrote about buggery or adult/child love as "scare tactics". One might be able to make that argument except that the vast majority (99 44/100% ?) of catholic priest sexual scandals involved man/boy sexual abuse...

In any event, we as a civilization have fatter fish to fry than "gay marriage". Islam, the religion of satan worshippers, is clawing at the door. It's time to wake-up and fight the enemy...if we don't, the issue of "gay marriage" becomes moot. There is time enough to address the issue after we reduce these murdering slavers to a non-viable, insignificant population.

Anything else is suicide.


----------



## Mitpo62

I don't believe that a "no" vote on gay marriage is a referendum against gay people.


----------



## Guest

Mitpo62 said:


> I don't believe that a "no" vote on gay marriage is a referendum against gay people.


Certainly not.


----------



## DOD/272

Hey Boys
Where is Lt. Jim Dangle, Reno's finest when you need him?


----------



## BrickCop

I agree with Delta in that it redefining marriage can lead to more changes...

Since gay/straight people have a legal right to marry, does that mean people who were born bi-sexual also have the right to "marry" a man and a woman (2 people)? Don't Bi- sexual people have the same rights as gay and hetero people to marry since the definition of has proven to be subject to change.

What legal argument could be made against such a proposal ?


----------



## tommym27

the people who are so against gay marriage come up with some of the best scenarios ever...


----------



## Guest

tommym27 said:


> the people who are so against gay marriage come up with some of the best scenarios ever...


Also the most plausible.

Just because they scare the crap out of you doesn't make them any less plausible.


----------



## Andy0921




----------



## bikecop34

4ransom said:


> So on this arguement you think it is fair to a child to be ridiculed by others for something he/she has no control over? Imagine being 10 years old in elementery school and being constantly questioned and ridiculed by other kids about having gay parents. People constantly asking why. Having no father to show up at father/son softball games. Having no mother for mother/daughter sleepovers.
> 
> When the child becomes a teen and starts dating, yet has difficulty because everyone thinks he hasto turn out like his parents. Other peers afraid to go over his house to play video games because his gay parents may be there.
> 
> These problems do exist, no matter how good the parents do to raise there child right. There will always be cruel people who make fun and alienate. This is made even more difficult by a choice made by 2 people that the child has no control over. This affects the child in a bad way.


Okay, I was going to stay out of this one and just read the posts, but this one really got to me. My question is, did any of us get to choose who our parents are? Not that I am aware of, but if anyone out there did, please let me know. Did the child of alcohol parents get to choose? Did they choose to grow up in a household filled with chaos and insanity? Did the child of a drug addict get to choose? Did they say, geez I want a drug addicted mom so I can be born with the same addiction? Do physically abused children choose to be born into the violence and horrors they suffer? Perhaps we should just ban everyone who has the potential to screw their kids up from reproducing. I could go on and on with this, but I think I made my point. In the grand scheme of things, (and this is only my personal opinion) being the child of gay parents seems to be a hell of a lot better than some of the other options out there. I acknowledge that some gay parents may fall into the categories I noted above, but seriously, is someone going to tell me that having two loving moms or dads is as terrible as growing up with alcoholic/drug addicted, abusive parents? And one other thing...as far as there always being cruel people in the world...maybe, just maybe that is the underlying problem here. I guess we just let people remain ignorant and cruel, and force others to change to suite the ignorant!


----------



## 4ransom

> Perhaps we should just ban everyone who has the potential to screw their kids up from reproducing


.

It would sure make our jobs a lot easier.. Wasn't there a judge in upstate New York a few years ago who told some lady she couldn't have any more kids because she screwed up raising the ones she had?



> My question is, did any of us get to choose who our parents are? Not that I am aware of, but if anyone out there did, please let me know. Did the child of alcohol parents get to choose? Did they choose to grow up in a household filled with chaos and insanity? Did the child of a drug addict get to choose? Did they say, geez I want a drug addicted mom so I can be born with the same addiction? Do physically abused children choose to be born into the violence and horrors they suffer?


Completely different. Children who grow up in housholds with drug addicted parents or alcoholic parents are less likely to be ridiclued for it because people are less likely to know about it. The child does not choose to have parents with these problems, however these are curable diseases for which treatment can be sought. They do not have to last forever. They still have 2 parents of the same sex and will still have healthy answers to their questions about sex and dating and life while growing up.

Let me ask, when you are a teenage boy and starting being curious about the changes to your body and your first wet dream, did you ask your mother? As a teenage girl, when you get your first period, do you go to your father for help? NO.



> as far as there always being cruel people in the world...maybe, just maybe that is the underlying problem here. I guess we just let people remain ignorant and cruel, and force others to change to suite the ignorant!


If you are going to get into the heads of young teens and put an end to recess bullying and teasing, then you'll become a millionare and maybe even a form of god because you will have solved a problem that has been going in every generation of mankind.


----------



## tommym27

yeah delta...i am so scared that if gay people are allowed to get married then siblings worldwide are going to start getting married. you are right, that scares the crap out of me haha


----------



## serpico

I could care less.


----------



## Guest

tommym27 said:


> yeah delta...i am so scared that if gay people are allowed to get married then siblings worldwide are going to start getting married. you are right, that scares the crap out of me haha


Maybe when you grow up, you'll understand what I'm talking about. And, maybe you'll learn proper capitalization and punctuation, though I wouldn't lay money on that.


----------



## kwflatbed

Just a quick comment:

If you look at the age of the posters on this thread and think about it you
can see how the moral decline that has happened in this country.

The younger the age the more liberal the post.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

thats cause were "unenlightened" old farts and have boots older then most here...we have the advantage of experience


----------



## SOT

I think it's something in the water or the education system.

Consider this, in the 40's, 50's, 60's and even 70's you could go to school, learn what you needed to learn to actually go out and get a good paying job. So my point is, it isn't just the "liberalization" of "kids today" they are also lacking fundamental critical thinking skills. If they weren't they would figure out marriage isn't between to same sex partners.
It is the dumbing down of America


----------



## Guest

SOT_II said:


> I think it's something in the water or the education system.
> 
> Consider this, in the 40's, 50's, 60's and even 70's you could go to school, learn what you needed to learn to actually go out and get a good paying job.


That was before the media glorified the hip-hop culture, which tells you;

1) Demand respect for yourself, but give none to anyone else.

2) Treat women like garbage.

3) You can do drugs with impunity.

4) F*** the police.

5) The ends always justify the means.

6) Dress like a circus clown.


----------



## tommym27

Delta, you didn't bust paratrooper's balls for his typing. Why not?

I wouldn't say it is the schooling, like mentioned before, in the 40's, 50's and 60's blacks were treated horribly and it was perfectly acceptable. Well, acceptable until the 60's or so. Maybe flatbed is right, younger people are more accepting of other people (or less morally inclined as he puts it) but you cannot just blanket entire generations or groups of people as something. i.e liberals, conservatives, whatever. As far as I am concerned, I am liberal on somethings and conservative on others. When it comes to gay marriage I could give a shit less. When it comes to crime I tend to be very conservative. 

If being that way is part of being the "dumbing down of America" then I guess I am a part of it. And I won't lose any sleep over it either. (Grammatically correct and capitalized, just like I learned in my shitty public school)


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

He's cutting me slack cause of my alzhiemers


----------



## 94c

the best part of gay relationships is that it is so much harder to determine the primary aggressor, so they both go.


----------



## USMCTrooper

I was dead set against Gay marriage until I realized it has opened up a whole new avenue for me. By allowing _same - sex marriages,_ because denying them discriminates, the Court has stepped out onto that slippery slope. I intend to further slide down that slope and lobby for _multi - partner marriages_ using the same arguments that gay marriage supporters do. If we will all love each other and raise caring, nuturing families why should we be denied that right?!

So lets hurry up and vote down gay marriage so I can exploit this liberal concept..... I wanna be like this guy B:


----------



## dcs2244

Well, I reckon it's kinda like our generation. Remember when we were in the fifth grade and Miss Rottencrotch explained that "...democrats represent the little guy and republicans represent BIG BUSSINESS...".

Well, the same thing happens today...but more so. Today, every PC pet agenda is rammed into the kids heads from kindergarten on. "Heather's two daddies", "Culture/People X contributed as much to the design and founding of the United States as that bunch of dead, white, racist, eurocentric males..." and "...Maya Angelou is a better poet than TS Eliot...". One must also remember that the feminization of boys is well under way...just keep feeding 'em Ritalin from their Pez dispensers.

Is it any wonder then, that the plight of blacks or indians in America is compared to homosexuals? As I said before, marriage is to provide a stable framework from which to raise children and continue society. It is not an institution that exists to validate someones genetic anomaly. Since homosexuals are unable to procreate, there is no need for them to marry. Blacks were denied equal treatment as human beings, even though they were and are allowed to marry. Blacks were capable of procreating and producing human beings. Homosexuals are not. No one has denied homosexuals a place at the lunch counter, made them ride in the back of the bus, denied them employment (ala NINA, etc.): any claim to "marriage" is specious. In fact, homosexuals have been pretty successful throughout history.

In any event, once the gene that causes homosexuality has been isolated, this debate will become moot...there are really more important topics facing civilization today than this "gay marriage" nonsense.


----------



## SOT

It's simple, if I can't own machine guns and tanks and rocket launchers with NO oversight from the Gov't. There ain't NO WAY IN HELL, two pillow biters should be able to get married.

When I don't have to submit to fingerprinting and background checks and fees to excercise my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, then MAYBE we can talk about ************** I marrying ************** II and even then they better be hot and into FFM encounters.

EOT


----------

