Sorry, I still don't get what you're trying to do, or trying to say.


If it was truly "satire", it came off as ineffectual and mean.

To pigeon hole this into a partisan discussion is unproductive and immature, and shows little understanding to the greater societal issues involved.

You don't know me at all and don't pretend you do. I do have gay relatives and friends, and I do understand their concerns, and I also talk to them about the process of incrementalism, and how that is the way they will eventually get what they desire. I'm just not closed minded to the realities of life as some are in their impatience.

I am not against "gay marriage"; it's just that I don't think the concerns of the heterosexual majority on this topic can only be seen as prejudicial.

There's a way to talk about this without condemning everyone you disagree with, or rather, don't understand.

This was a well written post Richie !!!!

I am with you, and NOT as depicted by some as slow, unsympathetic, dolts.

Thanks for saying it very well !! I promised a poster I would investigate and I am but to your point, it seems that this issue must be pushed down my throat.....these folks who support this kind of thing want sensitivity but offer none in return.

Sorry you misunderstood again Rickie. I have tried to explain to you three different ways and you still come back with I don't get it. And them slam me for being prejudiced. What part of the red highlight confuses you? If you really do not understand then Maybe next Monday night, I will stop by City Fire and take to time to explain it to you slowly. However, if you are just saying that for childish reasons, then I have no time for your silliness. I will try to get there before you have had too many drinks. LOL

I totally agree. For some reason at this point in our country's history, the agenda of the gay community has reached a near fever pitch, and a form of desperation, as if it's a now or never prospect.

There has been so much progress in the last very few years for the gay community that I don't know why this is so.

There are still some reactionary public figures like the hateful pastor in North Carolina who recently "preached" for the death of homosexuals, but he will be castigated and shunned by a society that not so long ago would have thought him speaking God's will. The fact that he will be challenged and shunned is true progress for the gay community in a world where that wouldn't have been the case a few short years ago.

When a solution is figured out that gives the gay community the societal recognition they desire without destroying all that the majority hold sacred, we will have at last solved this problem.

Richie: It may be exacerbated by the "MTV-generation" effect of ever more immediate results. There was a show called "Life On Mars" in the UK about a 2005-era cop waking up in 1973 and the look on his face when they said the fingerprint results from Scotland Yard would be back in TWO WEEKS was priceless.

We want results (or at least progress) NOW.

We have facial recognition, fingerprint and retina scanners, ATM cards, the internet, satellite communications. Wikipedia and Snopes have supplanted the Encyclopedias of our youth.

Cook food in an hour? Feh! Where's my microwave?

Phones - Landlines? How quaint!

In the 1960s, it took a while to organize a protest. Now you can do it via flash-mob and discuss the results over Skype!

So I think, over time, our expectations are changing. Our "internal chronometers" have been irrevocably affected.

Does this help or hurt the cause, or agenda, of the gay community.

Is this government overreach?

The DOJ has ordered a college to allow an anatomically complete male to use the women's bathrooms. The story says this man is saving money to get gender reassignment surgery. This male is 36 years old, and has been married twice and has children, if that matters to anyone.

Obama DOJ Forces University To Allow Biological Male Into Female Restrooms

I generally don't discuss gay rights. It usually doesn't come up in my daily life. But when it does come up (like now), I will include everything. Why not?

They can do anything they want. They have all the same rights as everyone else. They can get married if they want to, it just won't be a legal marriage as we know it between a man and a woman.

I don't think they need to be married other than for the purpose of debasing our culture. They can accomplish everything they need to accomplish with a contract of some sort. But it shouldn't be the standard marriage contract as it pertains to a man and a woman.

Looks like a split decision! :1rotfl:

Things are not always what they seem.:ho:

We did get off course on this one. Thanks Admin.

The Villager II:clap2:

And you just made my point.

They CANNOT accomplish the same thing. In many states contracts like those you refer to can be challenged by family members. As I said elsewhere, a congressional study found over 1600 "benefits" to marriage. So, in a sense, marriage can represent 1600 different contracts.

But I do take exception to part of what you said - that 'they' don't "need" to be married other than to be "debasing our culture". I can think of SO many legal marriages that are more debasing (like an adoptive uncle I had getting married 6 times to 4 women - to say nothing of the typical 'celebrity marriage').

Those 1600 benefits have almost nothing to do with what goes on inside a church - which is why I'm also in favor of protecting churches from having to perform ceremonies that their dogma says they shouldn't. Those 1600 benefits are secular benefits and, if you get them from when a Justice of the Peace marries you, well, that's the way it should be.