Originally Posted by RichieLion

It's more sinister that you think. Who would want to deprive two people who love each other of the happiness they seek? This exploitation of human emotion is being use to weaken and destroy the traditional views of God, marriage, and especially family.

Without "God" where do your rights come from? Why, the state of course. Family becomes subservient to the will of the state. Instead of the state representing the "people", we become subservient to the state.

Our love for our fellow man is being twisted to ultimately elevate the state to the supreme power.

I think you are being a little paranoid on this one. We all just want our fair share of the pie. Like women and minorities, gay Americans just want to feel a part of this great country.

Read this before you condemn them: http://www.thelifefiles.com/2010/03/...against-group/

If "civil unions" were considered the same as marriage, then marriage wouldn't be needed in the gay community. The fact of the matter is, they are NOT. A Congressional study found that there are over 1600 legal "benefits" to marriage - many of them pretty obscure.

But here's the problem. Let's say we make civil unions legal.

Cool. Maybe we've solved the "default inheritance" problem with that.

...but what about health insurance coverage? Hospital visitation rules? Dozens upon dozens of other things and EACH ONE of them now has to be addressed.

If you call it a marriage, then all those things that had to be individually addressed before are now taken care of.

You tell me who more represents the "sanctity" of marriage.. My aunt who spent over 15 years with her partner or Newt Gingrich who was a serial adulterer and *really* looked bad in that infamous interview where he claimed it was be he so loved the country.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I think you are being a little paranoid on this one. We all just want our fair share of the pie. Like women and minorities, gay Americans just want to feel a part of this great country.

Read this before you condemn them: Gays Are The Most Discriminated Against Group?

It no secret that being outside of mainstream society's norm will get you treated differently. It's human nature to be wary of differences. I don't think a "gay advocacy" website is going to be very balanced though; do you?

Originally Posted by djplong

If "civil unions" were considered the same as marriage, then marriage wouldn't be needed in the gay community. The fact of the matter is, they are NOT. A Congressional study found that there are over 1600 legal "benefits" to marriage - many of them pretty obscure.

But here's the problem. Let's say we make civil unions legal.

Cool. Maybe we've solved the "default inheritance" problem with that.

...but what about health insurance coverage? Hospital visitation rules? Dozens upon dozens of other things and EACH ONE of them now has to be addressed.

If you call it a marriage, then all those things that had to be individually addressed before are now taken care of.

You tell me who more represents the "sanctity" of marriage.. My aunt who spent over 15 years with her partner or Newt Gingrich who was a serial adulterer and *really* looked bad in that infamous interview where he claimed it was be he so loved the country.

You're entitled to your opinions. I'm gratified that the two of you are sticking to the issue of "gay marriage" without slandering anyone here.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????

Marriage came into being as a way to formalize land ownership and inheritance laws. Go learn about the history of the church. Remembers priests could be married until the 12th century....the church wanted to land that the priests family held. They did not want it going to wives and children. Love had little, if anything, to do with marriage. . And homosexuals think they are tax paying citizens who deserve equal rights. Your tone itself insinuates they are second class citizens and that is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Instead of fixing what's not broke, this makes a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Marriage came into being as a way to formalize land ownership and inheritance laws. Go learn about the history of the church. Remembers priests could be married until the 12th century....the church wanted to land that the priests family held. They did not want it going to wives and children. Love had little, if anything, to do with marriage. . And homosexuals think they are tax paying citizens who deserve equal rights. Your tone itself insinuates they are second class citizens and that is unacceptable.

And your tone presumes something I neither think nor said.

I was talking about contemporary homosexual militant activists who seem to think traditional wisdom handed down thru the ages since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and down thru our nation's founding fathers was the wisdom of "fools".

Our nation's constitution and institution of legal marriage did not last this long based on the wisdom of fools.

War is OK....love isn't. I do not understand why some people have a problem with other peoples happiness.

Originally Posted by waynet

War is OK....love isn't. I do not understand why some people have a problem with other peoples happiness.

I sure wish you would say more on this, as I dont understand fully your meaning !

There are people who find happiness in many things that are not legal. Is the thrust of what you say that if it makes you happy, then you should be allowed to do it ? Of course you will need money and support from somewhere but then once you get enough money and others who support what makes you happy, then it becomes legal ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I sure wish you would say more on this, as I dont understand fully your meaning !

There are people who find happiness in many things that are not legal. Is the thrust of what you say that if it makes you happy, then you should be allowed to do it ? Of course you will need money and support from somewhere but then once you get enough money and others who support what makes you happy, then it becomes legal ?

That is the best twist of someones words I have seen in a long time. What Waynet said was clear and to the point and very easy to understand.

Originally Posted by chachacha

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable.

I thought that considering gays as deviants was a thing of the past.
I think that most gays are just as normal and healthy as straights.

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I thought that considering gays as deviants was a thing of the past.
I think that most gays are just as normal and healthy as straights.

They are unless you fall into the 6 pac mentality.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

They are unless you fall into the 6 pac mentality.

Still acting the lunkhead. You're always betraying your true nature, and you never realize it.

Someday you'll be able to stay on topic, instead of your gratuitous attempts at insulting those you cannot debate with intelligence.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Still acting the lunkhead. You're always betraying your true nature, and you never realize it.

Someday you'll be able to stay on topic, instead of your gratuitous attempts at insulting those you cannot debate with intelligence.

Thanks Richie. I need the encouragement. I agree I cannot debate anyone with intelligence that I do not posses. I can only speak the truth and I do appreciate your recognition of that.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Thanks Richie. I need the encouragement. I agree I cannot debate anyone with intelligence that I do not posses. I can only speak the truth and I do appreciate your recognition of that.

??????????recognition; always the dreamer. It's good to dream, I guess.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????

Thousands of years ago, marriage was about PROPERTY - as in the women who were PROPERTY of their husbands. It was about landowners teaming up - or kingdoms forming alliances.

Heck, even today we haven't totally eradicated the whole bit about arranged marriages and other forced pairbonding in some parts of the world!

We have redefined marriage in comparatively RECENT times to mean two people who love each other.. And, let's face it, until not long ago, a woman couldn't exactly say no to a proposal in most places.