Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[garya505 2]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

[Cristy 4]

I think we need to ban marriage for people who became blind, deaf, disabled, disfigured etc... after they were born. If they were not born that way then they don't deserve to get married. Anyone born like that can get married. But they have to prove they were born like that or no marriage.

[mybackpages 0]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

Okay so seriously for me too...what is it about the marriage liscence that bothers you so much? If I read you right, you hold marriage as a sacred institution, a covenent between a man and a woman.

If so, then why is government in the business of marrying people? Would you be willing to remove government from this business and return it only to religious organization?

Of course it means cancelling our petitons for foreign SOs because government would not recognize it as a legal union. It also means accepting that some churches do allow same sex marriages.

Edited November 10, 2006 by mybackpages

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Daniel

:energetic:

[mybackpages 0]

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel,,,,you are going to need a larger popcorn than what you brought and here..have a sode

enjoy.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel,,,,you are going to need a larger popcorn than what you brought and here..have a sode

enjoy.

gracias!

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel,,,,you are going to need a larger popcorn than what you brought and here..have a sode

enjoy.

gracias!

Daniel

:energetic:

hey hermano, share with your amigo dean ?

[dalegg 143]

What amuses me is that many people know and work with homosexuals and have no idea.

The horror!

I've been trying to get my work to institute some sort of patch or bracelet or something for identification, but no luck as of yet.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel,,,,you are going to need a larger popcorn than what you brought and here..have a sode

enjoy.

gracias!

Daniel

:energetic:

hey hermano, share with your amigo dean ?

Daniel

:energetic:

[garya505 2]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

Okay so seriously for me too...what is it about the marriage liscence that bothers you so much? If I read you right, you hold marriage as a sacred institution, a covenent between a man and a woman.

If so, then why is government in the business of marrying people? Would you be willing to remove government from this business and return it only to religious organization?

Of course it means cancelling our petitons for foreign SOs because government would not recognize it as a legal union. It also means accepting that some churches do allow same sex marriages.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

[Cristy 4]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

Okay so seriously for me too...what is it about the marriage liscence that bothers you so much? If I read you right, you hold marriage as a sacred institution, a covenent between a man and a woman.

If so, then why is government in the business of marrying people? Would you be willing to remove government from this business and return it only to religious organization?

Of course it means cancelling our petitons for foreign SOs because government would not recognize it as a legal union. It also means accepting that some churches do allow same sex marriages.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

How about 2 consenting adults pledging their love and commitment to each other?

[meauxna 15]

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

You're kind of obsessed with the polygamy---something you want to share?

What if it was something sacred and unique between two people? What if 'marriage' was never 'sacred and unique' unless the parties involved defined it that way?

As far as the legal definition of marriage, love has nothing to do with it. Our government (read 'us') decided it is bureaucratic function of registering families--look at marriage traditions from around the world.

While most here gasp on about their undying love for their domestic partner (self included), love is not a prerequisite for the spousal immigration benefit (for example). Nor should it be. How would you have our government define and prove your "love" vs say, mine?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal in my state

But gary thinks it shouldn't be because some choices are ok for society to accept and others are not?

That is correct. Do you really want society to accept all lifestyle choices?

Would you be suggesting that the gay lifestyle is harmful, and therefore somehow undesirable?

I'm surprised noone has mentioned incest, pedophilia or beastiality in the same breath as homosexuality. Its popped up in previous debates on this issue - which really highlights not only how prejudiced people are towards certain minority groups but also that they consider sex 'dirty'.

[garya505 2]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

Okay so seriously for me too...what is it about the marriage liscence that bothers you so much? If I read you right, you hold marriage as a sacred institution, a covenent between a man and a woman.

If so, then why is government in the business of marrying people? Would you be willing to remove government from this business and return it only to religious organization?

Of course it means cancelling our petitons for foreign SOs because government would not recognize it as a legal union. It also means accepting that some churches do allow same sex marriages.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

How about 2 consenting adults pledging their love and commitment to each other?

Why does it have to be only 2?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

First how does it affect you?

Second, what is it about gay marriage you find so dangerous?

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

have you been taking lessons from talk radio on how to cause a diversion in a discussion when your argument is working?

No, it's a serious question. Personally I don't have a problem with either one as long as they don't ask for a marriage license.

Okay so seriously for me too...what is it about the marriage liscence that bothers you so much? If I read you right, you hold marriage as a sacred institution, a covenent between a man and a woman.

If so, then why is government in the business of marrying people? Would you be willing to remove government from this business and return it only to religious organization?

Of course it means cancelling our petitons for foreign SOs because government would not recognize it as a legal union. It also means accepting that some churches do allow same sex marriages.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

How about 2 consenting adults pledging their love and commitment to each other?

Why does it have to be only 2?

Because the majority of women (with the exception of the emotionally submissive) would object to being in a harem. Marriage is about equality, first and foremost.

Can a man be considered equal with his 1,2,6,20,500 wives?