Congratulations to the Gay Marriage Opposition Folks

[buckit]

Most in the scientific community now believe that being gay is also biological.  As soon as we can prove this, it changes the landscape.

[swirless]

Did blacks and whites choose to date each other and then marry?

See that is the problem here, it isn't blacks v. whites and marriage, it is if a white guy looks at a black girl or vice versa and they start feeling a little something, if you see a hot girl,  black red, white whatever the girl is hot, there is no color barrier on that, it is a hot girl and the other way for women who see a good looking guy, prejudices ran deep in the history of the US and it was do to rumors and falsehoods about people passing on falsehoods about the races but the attraction of a man and a women regardless of color have been there, I think Thomas Jefferson felt that

[swirless]

Most in the scientific community now believe that being gay is also biological.  As soon as we can prove this, it changes the landscape.

Totally agree but I think that would have to be continually shown and proven, and I am not arguing that, it is very possible again, it is an nature v. nurture argument that many may or may not get

[buckit]

Did blacks and whites choose to date each other and then marry?

See that is the problem here, it isn't blacks v. whites and marriage, it is if a white guy looks at a black girl or vice versa and they start feeling a little something, if you see a hot girl,  black red, white whatever the girl is hot, there is no color barrier on that, it is a hot girl and the other way for women who see a good looking guy, prejudices ran deep in the history of the US and it was do to rumors and falsehoods about people passing on falsehoods about the races but the attraction of a man and a women regardless of color have been there, I think Thomas Jefferson felt that

Sexuality is no different.  It's hardwired into the brain.  No person is completely gay or straight, but everyone's sexuality is somewhere on a scale. 

[buckit]

Most in the scientific community now believe that being gay is also biological. As soon as we can prove this, it changes the landscape.

Totally agree but I think that would have to be continually shown and proven, and I am not arguing that, it is very possible again, it is an nature v. nurture argument that many may or may not get

Let me ask you this.  If we could PROVE that sexual preference was hardwired at birth, would you change  you stance?

[acacius]

Personally, I think "civil unions" and "marriages" should be entirely seperate things.  "Civil unions" should be the *only* thing that the state should be concerned with, and they should be available to all couples, regardless of their gender.  "Marriage" should be an entirely religious institution.  If one church doesn't want to marry particular couples or recognize marriages from other churches, hey, that's their perogative.  But I don't feel that that's something the state should be involved in.

[John Galt?]

The problem with the Florida Amendment is it not only defined marriage as "one man, one woman" it also banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one
woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is
treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

I voted for the measure in Florida and the reasons, although maybe narrow minded, are because where does this marriage amendment lead, are polygamists to then be allowed to get married because that is what they feel is natural, I think that the bigger issue is that the United States including the liberal state of California is not endorsing an extreme liberal agenda and this message should ring loud and clear to the President and to the new Congress

Does the amendment say anything about polygamists?  Did you even fully read it?

[ufojoe]

prejudices ran deep in the history of the US and it was do to rumors and falsehoods about people passing on falsehoods about the races but the attraction of a man and a women regardless of color have been there, I think Thomas Jefferson felt that

And I think those falsehoods remain with gays and lesbians. IMO, it's false that they choose to be like that.

And as far as proving it's natural? A lot of folks that it was unnatural for blacks and whites to marry back then.

[BucsGuru]

Joe,
Because what is being attempted is the changing of the "Rights" by those who feel as though they aren't being accepted.  As long as we are a dominate heterosexual country, I don't forsee this or other similar laws changing, and they shouldn't.  I accept that if a person chooses to be a homosexual, that this is their right, regardless of how I believe.  But when their lifestyle attempts to change the way of life as we have known it as a dominate heterosexual society, by redifining laws to force everyone to accept their lifestyle, then I have a problem with it.  It would be like me going to Amsterdam and trying to force the Government to stop allowing legalized prostitution and pot.  This is an accepted way of life THEIR.  It isn't here.  Whether you agree with this or not, it is so.  The same is said about homosexuals in the U.S.  
We are confusing the crap out of our children in this country!  When my child comes home and asks if he is gay because someone says he is, I tell him that people will say anything.  When my child comes home and asks if he is gay because his teacher tells him he might be because people are born that way, I have a problem with that.  First, there is no definitive scientific evidence that can say people are born gay.  However, there is ongoing research in this field, and we are learning more and more about the physche of the homosexual mind.  Experts are divideded on this issue, and probably will be in the forseeable future.  

[ufojoe]

Personally, I think "civil unions" and "marriages" should be entirely seperate things.  "Civil unions" should be the *only* thing that the state should be concerned with, and they should be available to all couples, regardless of their gender.  "Marriage" should be an entirely religious institution.  If one church doesn't want to marry particular couples or recognize marriages from other churches, hey, that's their perogative.  But I don't feel that that's something the state should be involved in.

I agree with that 100%. Buck said that too. It's Ventura's stance also.

[spartan]

Personally, I think "civil unions" and "marriages" should be entirely seperate things.  "Civil unions" should be the *only* thing that the state should be concerned with, and they should be available to all couples, regardless of their gender.  "Marriage" should be an entirely religious institution.  If one church doesn't want to marry particular couples or recognize marriages from other churches, hey, that's their perogative.  But I don't feel that that's something the state should be involved in.

I have no problem with that stance. It is in fact one that I have put forward. Unfortunately there are those, both on this board and off it who have said that is not enough. Including Joe I hasten to add

[Biggs3535]

I still find it hard to believe that gay marriage is being compared to interracial marriage.

[buckit]

I still find it hard to believe that gay marriage is being compared to interracial marriage.

Why?

[ufojoe]

Personally, I think "civil unions" and "marriages" should be entirely seperate things.  "Civil unions" should be the *only* thing that the state should be concerned with, and they should be available to all couples, regardless of their gender.  "Marriage" should be an entirely religious institution.  If one church doesn't want to marry particular couples or recognize marriages from other churches, hey, that's their perogative.  But I don't feel that that's something the state should be involved in.

I have no problem with that stance. It is in fact one that I have put forward. Unfortunately there are those, both on this board and off it who have said that is not enough. Including Joe I hasten to add

Wrong.

I have supported civil unions for all since I heard the idea floated by Ventura.

The word "marriage" would have no legal standing. If people wanted to add to their civil union and get married in
a church, and put a little certificate on their wall, good for them.

Get your facts straight.

Jesse Ventura has the best idea that I would support. I used it in one of my posts:

Gay marriage? Ventura has a plan to solve that one too: have all marriages - gay and straight - officially recognized as civil unions by governments.

He told a story of a gay former wrestler who was barred from his long-time companion's hospital room because he was not a spouse or next-of-kin.

"Government has no right to tell you who to fall in love with," he said to loud applause. "Let the churches acknowledge marriage. Then the churches could decide not to acknowledge gay marriage - and they have every right to do that."

[buckit]

Why does it matter what we deem "marriage" to be.  WHY? Specifically.  What possible harm does it cause to let a same sex couple be "married".  Again, specifics.