DELETED

[waterguy]

Why don't we all agree to disagree and have another painkiller

[Gromit]

Deal!!!

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

SJfromNj...your conclusion that the system in California worked perfectly begs the question. Many believe that the California Supreme Court's decision was flawed and flat out wrong. That's the current issue and the cause of so much concern on the part of those who hold a viewpoint contrary to yours.

[toes in the sand]

WARNING! CANDID HUMOR DEAD AHEAD!!

I am proud to say that both FF and myself have been married to our husbands for 10 years and 11 years respectively. And we're still going strong. But amongst our co-workers and friends we are sadly the exception rather than the rule.

At the heart of this discussion is whether you believe that homosexuality is an issue of nature vs. nuture. Meaning that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay, whereas others believe that someone is BORN gay or naturally predisposed to be attracted to the same sex.

Being truly "gay" or "homosexual" is hardly a choice IMHO. Why would one CHOOSE to subject themselves to the kind of treatment that folks like yourself would have them subjected to and to be told that they are sinners and are godless?

Fundamentally it seems that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay and view it as a "lifestyle" rather than the core of one's being.

I suggest to you that you could no more STOP being a heterosexual than you could CHOOSE to be gay.

And if you tell me that you've never watched a little girl on girl action I'm gonna call BULLSH!T).

So honestly unless you can accept or believe that being gay is not a choice there's no point to engaging in this discussion.

Congratulations on your decade of marriage short timer. Looking at our 27th this August and still learning.

You can call BULL now if you like. Sorry, I don't subscribe to girl on girl, guy on guy or whatever you may be watching. Don't be naive as to think that all of us are the same. We are all motivated by different thoughts and feelings.
You mention that being gay is not a choice in your opinion. Then you suggest that there is no point in your engaging in this discussion if anyone should disagree. I disagree with you so you can stop here. The human genome has been mapped. I know of no gene that has been tagged as the homosexual gene. If it is genetic how is it passed on? If it is not a choice why are homosexuals not extinct? Homosexuals humans cannot reproduce with one another. If a couple has a child that is gay does that mean that the hetero mother should keep an eye on her spouse wondering if he is going to pop out of the closet some day? The homosexual gene (if there is one) should have gone the same way as our tails or being quadraped. Why would someone choose to be different? You should take a look at a history book. Humans have made the choice to be different than others all through history. Some with exceptional results and others not so much.

My problem with redefining marriage is not religious. It is not because of any disagreement with the lifestyle of another. It is because when you redefine a word that is deeply ingrained in my culture then you loose the meaning of that tradition forever in the future. I do not want my daughter to HAVE to explain to my great-grandchildren that her parents were married and that her father was a man and her mother was a woman.

If a same sex couple wants to share their lives in the same way as I do with my wife I have no problem with that. Our government should not withhold benefits from couples because of their legal lifestyle. Government should not be the judge of legal lifestyles. That will be left to someone with much greater power. But call it something other than marriage. Marriage is a union between a woman and a man. Always has been, always should be.

So you see, my disagreement with same sex marriage has nothing to do with the discussion of "nature vs nurture".

[Gromit]

Toes - While the HGP is complete -- the analysis is not:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... home.shtml

[toes in the sand]

'splain this then Lucy. How is this gay gene passed on?

But then again, you miss my point. (not surprising since you only seem to pick and choose the points you wish to discuss) My disagreement with gay "marriage" has nothing to do with nature vs nurture or even the question of the whether being homosexual is wrong.

My culture has held that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Call it civil union. Call it whatever. It is not marriage.

[Gromit]

OK Toes.. as long as it's exactly the SAME thing...

Oops but Brown v Board of Education stated that separate is inherently UNequal.

Honestly you can call it whatever you want as long as the same rights are afforded.

[toes in the sand]

For SJ it seems that all these issues and questions are secondary to his fundamental opposition to homosexuality. They really become moot. If there's no homosexuality in the first place, none of these issues come up. And SJ doesn't want there to be any homosexuality. He believes it is wrong. He is deeply and fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. I'm somewhat surprised that he will even consider same sex "unions", since even that second class status would appear to lend some degree of legitimacy to homosexuality. I never know what to say to someone who holds firmly to that belief. I don't think there's much you can say.

Lex, nice to see you found time to pop in and stir things up. Are you going to stick around or troll on out of here?

[toes in the sand]

OK Toes.. as long as it's exactly the SAME thing...

Oops but Brown v Board of Education stated that separate is inherently UNequal.

Honestly you can call it whatever you want as long as the same rights are afforded.

But that is not the battle being fought. Not in the courts nor at the ballot box.

[Gromit]

Hey now Toes. No need to get nasty.

My crass attempt at humor isn't your brand of heroin I know but don't take it out on Lex. I think he was trying to be nice.

[toes in the sand]

Hey now Toes. No need to get nasty.

My crass attempt at humor isn't your brand of heroin I know but don't take it out on Lex. I think he was trying to be nice.

Good to see that you actually have a definition of nasty. Perhaps I find it dificult to distinguish your humor from just being nasty.
Lex knows where I am coming from. Apparantly in his book I am a resident troll as my opinion differs from his.

[Lex]

Toes--

Huh?

Seems to be something I'm missing.

[flip-flop]

So if its the ability to reproduce, then I suppose we should take the right to marry away from all of those childless BY CHOICE hetero couples out there.

NO benefits for you either.

This is a fundamental human rights issue that will be looked back on in a mere few decades, probably the length of your marriage Toes, as as horrendous and reprehensible and unbelievable as all other forms of discrimination are for the most part now.

Separate is not equal. Equal is equal. Marriage for all. Federal benefits are denied to same sex partners. Hospitals turn away same sex partners in deference to parents who are fundamentally opposed to the lifestyle of their child, the patient. Not always, but it does happen.

I don't believe anyone ever said there is a GAY gene any more than there is a left-handed gene. I am left-handed, neither of my parents are. Perhaps the milk man was left-handed. Who knows.

Again, I guess I always come back to the same question when discussing this issue. WHY DO YOU CARE if two consenting adults decide to marry one another with all the rights and responsibilities that brings. Don't like same sex marriage...Don't get one. Period. What gives you the right to dictate what rights are denied to others simply because you disagree with their sexual preference.

[Gromit]

I love you Toes. Big HUG. XOXOXO

[toes in the sand]

FF
You failed to read my post completely or perhaps I was not clear.

I do not feel that benefits should be refused to a group because either they are able to reproduce or because of a lifestyle choice. I do not feel that benefits should be refused to gay couples.

Yes, equal is equal but do not try to define a homosexual union as marriage. Look up the word marriage in Websters. See if a same sex couple fits the description.