My wife left me!

[eekee 182]

Why would anyone choose to make their life so much more difficult? I've been around gay people since i was born, and several of my closest friends are, and nothing has ever lead me to believe that they made any kind of "choice."

There's a big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. I don't consider being able to practice polygamy a basic human right. For homosexuals, being able to practice homosexuality is. Being a polygamist is a choice.

These slippery slope arguments about homosexual marriages are, to agree with mox here, just plain silly.

I am also not at all spiritual, and i think that there's a lot more that straight people are currently doing to erode the institution of marriage than 2 men or 2 women would.

Here you are introducing another arguement that is not in itself entirely proveable. You infer that homosexuality is not a choice. I submit for review that we (in the collective sense) dont know if it is a choice or if it is a born instinct in some people. I do not know either way with any certainty.

Now, I want to make it clear here that I dont care either way (choice or born instinct). I really dont have a problem with homosexuals, but I will also submit for review that societal acceptance (and that is really what all these arguments boil down to when the rubber meets the road) is the crux of this argument, and the easiest way to obtain societal acceptance in situations such as these it to make the issue not a choice but a born trait that they have no control over. I mean, look at obese people. Obesity in this country while not completely accepted is not looked down upon quite as stringently now since there is evidence of a genetic abnormality in obese people which causes the problem.

I am like an agnostic wrt the homosexuality choice or no choice argument because there is enough evidence in my mind to go either way, but I cant prove it either way, nor can any other person. But maybe needing the proof is the scientist comming out in me, but I dont take too much on faith.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

I had a close lesbian friend once. She described just how difficult is was to feel the way she did when she was maturing knowing everyone felt it was a sin. It cannot be a choice, IMO. The greatest compliment she ever paid me and really helped me understand, "If you were just a woman, I could so fall in love with you. You'd be perfect."

Why would anyone choose to make their life so much more difficult? I've been around gay people since i was born, and several of my closest friends are, and nothing has ever lead me to believe that they made any kind of "choice."

[slim 1,514]

Slim, your tracking is good. I think the way it will go for now is that some states will recognize "civil unions" and these unions will get the legal status for taxes, insurance, estates, etc. In such unions there is no husband and wife...but life partners.

The dictionary tells me--a husband is defined as follows: "a married man considered in relation to his wife." A wife is defined as follows: "a married woman considered in relation to her husband." I don't see any ambiguity.

What I'm saying is the state shouldn't have marriage period. There should only be civil unions between two people... any two people... and whatever kind of sacred mumbo-jumbo you want to put on there should be Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment. But, that's all up to you, the state would only recognize the union between you and your significant other for legal purposes associated with things like what you listed above.

...what more could we want from our president?

How about keeping his personal religious beliefs out of the White House?

Why would anyone choose to make their life so much more difficult? I've been around gay people since i was born, and several of my closest friends are, and nothing has ever lead me to believe that they made any kind of "choice."

They have made a choice.

So have we all.

Whether they choose to be gay or straight, all people choose to act in accordance with societal standards and decide how "gay" they want to be. (Or how promiscuous or taboo or private or open... etc.) It's the actions that define one's orientation, not the inclination.

However, I too have heard 100% of the gay people I've known say it wasn't something they just decided to try and then "went gay" after enjoying it. It was something they just "knew" and even "felt" the same way they have feelings for everything else in their life.

[mox 298]

Homosexuality is actually very common in nature. Primates practice it, dolphins practice it, insects practice it...in fact there is growing evidence that homosexuality is not only common in most species on the planet, but that there seem to be evolutionary advantages to it. I wish I had sources to cite, but I do not. I didn't get it from hot-gay-man-on-man-nekked-booty-sex-action.com though. I'll see if I can dig up a credible source.

Regarding the definition of "husband" and "wife," (DJeffery! ), definitions change with time. As I mentioned in a previous post, the very thought of interracial marriage was thought to be an abomination just a few short decades ago. In the late 1800's Ohio was the first state to abolish anti-interracial marriage laws (there's a term for this, but I suffer from CRS syndrome*), but it wasn't until the late 60's that California became only the second state, and not until 2000 that the very last southern state (CRS again, don't remember which one) repealed these laws. Up until that point, the definition of a husband and wife would have included provisions about the color of one's skin.

I have to say that Slim has articulated my position much better than I was able to do. Simply put, the states have a legal definition of marriage that should not have to carry such burdens as "sacred" and any other nebulous baggage we wish to attach. Marriage, as far as the states are concerned, is a legal partnership, nothing more. Counting the number of penises and vaginas in that partnership to make sure they add up correctly is, from a strictly constitutional/humanist point of view, counter-intuitive. As Americans we have always prided ourselves on the idea that as long as what you're doing doesn't hurt anyone else you should be allowed to do it. Marriage should be no different.

In response to sc's point about:

Saying nobody sees marriage as sacred is pretty cynical considering we all have to perform some sort of ritual where we make promises and take vows...even before the Justice of the Peace in Vegas.

It seems to me that if the states considered marriage to be "sacred," there would be laws against marrying in Elvis costumes, or dressed up as Han Solo and Princess Leia, or as your favorite Star Trek characters, etc. At the very least these kinds of things would be sternly condemned by a majority of the population. But there is no outrage. You see it all the time on the nightly news or the internet, and the only thing I really hear is "wow, those people need to get a life."

Note that I (and others) are speaking of marriage OUTSIDE of a religious context. If you believe in God, and believe YOUR marriage to be sacred, then I for one support your right to this freedom of expression. In fact, I even support your church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple. But in the strictly legal sense, I see the state denying gay marriage as simply unconstitutional, and no weasel-wording about "domestic partnership" is going to fix that unless we declare all marriages to be domestic partnerships and give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions. (I would be perfectly fine with that actually, and it would actually be a much better separation between church and state.)

* "Can't Remember Shiт" syndrome.

[visaveteran1 33]

Homosexuality is actually very common in nature. Primates practice it, dolphins practice it, insects practice it...in fact there is growing evidence that homosexuality is not only common in most species on the planet, but that there seem to be evolutionary advantages to it. I wish I had sources to cite, but I do not. I didn't get it from hot-gay-man-on-man-nekked-booty-sex-action.com though. I'll see if I can dig up a credible source.

Regarding the definition of "husband" and "wife," (DJeffery! ), definitions change with time. As I mentioned in a previous post, the very thought of interracial marriage was thought to be an abomination just a few short decades ago. In the late 1800's Ohio was the first state to abolish anti-interracial marriage laws (there's a term for this, but I suffer from CRS syndrome*), but it wasn't until the late 60's that California became only the second state, and not until 2000 that the very last southern state (CRS again, don't remember which one) repealed these laws. Up until that point, the definition of a husband and wife would have included provisions about the color of one's skin.

I have to say that Slim has articulated my position much better than I was able to do. Simply put, the states have a legal definition of marriage that should not have to carry such burdens as "sacred" and any other nebulous baggage we wish to attach. Marriage, as far as the states are concerned, is a legal partnership, nothing more. Counting the number of penises and vaginas in that partnership to make sure they add up correctly is, from a strictly constitutional/humanist point of view, counter-intuitive. As Americans we have always prided ourselves on the idea that as long as what you're doing doesn't hurt anyone else you should be allowed to do it. Marriage should be no different.

In response to sc's point about:

Saying nobody sees marriage as sacred is pretty cynical considering we all have to perform some sort of ritual where we make promises and take vows...even before the Justice of the Peace in Vegas.

It seems to me that if the states considered marriage to be "sacred," there would be laws against marrying in Elvis costumes, or dressed up as Han Solo and Princess Leia, or as your favorite Star Trek characters, etc. At the very least these kinds of things would be sternly condemned by a majority of the population. But there is no outrage. You see it all the time on the nightly news or the internet, and the only thing I really hear is "wow, those people need to get a life."

Note that I (and others) are speaking of marriage OUTSIDE of a religious context. If you believe in God, and believe YOUR marriage to be sacred, then I for one support your right to this freedom of expression. In fact, I even support your church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple. But in the strictly legal sense, I see the state denying gay marriage as simply unconstitutional, and no weasel-wording about "domestic partnership" is going to fix that unless we declare all marriages to be domestic partnerships and give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions. (I would be perfectly fine with that actually, and it would actually be a much better separation between church and state.)

* "Can't Remember Shiт" syndrome.

I see some loose agreement around state civil unions, but beyond that I will simply agree to disagree.

As Barack Obama says, "Words matter." Yes, they do. A civil union is not a marriage. A life partner is not a wife or husband.

I will only add that the exceptions in life and nature still do not define the rule. The great preponderance of nature is "straight." If not, we all might might be here...so three cheers for heterosexuality.

"You may now kiss the bride...uh, once you decide who IS the bride."

[mox 298]

...so three cheers for heterosexuality.

lol...you and I agree on at least one thing.

[slim 1,514]

I've never understood why people make an argument for not allowing gays to marry while not requiring increased scrutiny for heterosexual couples as well. Why can anyone, provided they are heterosexual, get married just because? They don't have to prove they're in love. They don't have to prove they're making a good decision. They really only have to prove their identity.

The same goes for children. There's no licensing, there're no pre-requisite classes or training programs. There are no financial guidelines or set limits for birthing. There isn't even a bag limit.

I believe if we were to license families much in the way we license hunting, then we'd fare better in the end. Wanna have kids? Gotta get the kid stamp on your license and you can't get it until you've taken the 56 hour course in child familiarization, care and maintenance. Then, you've gotta prove you make more than 125% of the poverty level and then you have to pay a fee for the right to give birth, the "welcome" tax, and the annual renewal of the stamp. (plus your license.)

We would never do that because it limits people's rights to make bad decisions.

I forget who they were asking but some newsperson was asking a politician about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. He said, "Sure. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?"

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Speak for yourself, boys! «Knocks head on desk» Sorry... My inner "Nathan Lane" was coming out!

...so three cheers for heterosexuality.

lol...you and I agree on at least one thing.

[visaveteran1 33]

Just noticed I was the 500th poster on this thread!

[mox 298]

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

You just love to point out that distinction!

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

[mox 298]

You just love to point out that distinction!

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

It's an important distinction. Anyone can be the 500th poster. You just have to post after the 499th poster. But to be the 500th replier...well...you have to have actually been the 500th replier.

[visaveteran1 33]

You just love to point out that distinction!

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

It's an important distinction. Anyone can be the 500th poster. You just have to post after the 499th poster. But to be the 500th replier...well...you have to have actually been the 500th replier.

"Post" sounds more manly...(i.e, post hole digger).

[slim 1,514]

Yeah, but if you're a "poster" that leaves a lot of room for name calling.

[Chuckles 0]

Yeah, but if you're a "poster" that leaves a lot of room for name calling.

That's better then the "postee" I presume.