You are an intellectual loser who substitutes namecalling for debate.

Its not "debate" when you just pronounce your opinions without justification and expect me to respond.

I treated your nonsense how it deserved to be treated - as floating, unjustified nonsense that you refuse to justify. Unsurprisingly.

uhmmmm...not really. My priorities are where I'm comfortable. If I grew up on the prairies I'm not inclined to like big cities and big city drivers. I did mention that this was merely my personal feelings about the state of Texas.

I'll tell you something kinda funny though; that whole "we're the best" thing...yeah, that kinda gets up my nose and maybe that's another reason I just never got along in Texas. It's nationalism on a state level. I guess that might be one area where you fit quite nicely in Texas but I would certainly be a fish out of water.

Let me somehow salvage this side conversation by tying it back into the thread topic:I guess most Texans and I just don't share the same views about things. My little joke to you was in reference to this. Where I come from, being subtle is a virtue but I apologize that you found offense.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I am from Tx originally and I have to defend her. Tx is awesome! Yes, houston is a big stinky city, and yes, the big D is a big city filled with vapid rich folks...
But go to the real part of Tx. The sandy quiet beaches of Bolivar peninsula. The deer-filled woods along the Pedernales in the Hill Country, the fun little festivals in every little town in the state.(Armadillo races for example. )

Anyway.......It doesn't bother me what laws people pass. They can define marriage as anything they want. I know I'm not gonna get the legal rights that the marriage would give. So I gotta Cover myself with a will and a healthcare power of attorney and a bunch of other paperwork. I can't let myself get downhearted about people who hate me without even knowing me.

Here's my "gay agenda" :
1 Keep my old truck alive long enough to save $ for something else to drive when my old truck's inspection sticker expires in January.
2 Make appointments with the meat processor to get my turkeys done before T-giving.
3 Shoot me a deer for yummy ribs and venison burger and loin this winter.

Well you sure don't fit the stereotype.

Well, they are barking up the wrong tree. You can't dictate to the people of society to what they personally define something. Gay people can have a ceremony and call themselves 'married' now. When gay marriage is legal, the religious groups can still claim there are 'not married'.


The state should not recognize it. If it is recognized, then anti-discrimination and religious freedom laws apply and there is legal grounds to stop it.


100% false. Read the 14th amendment.


Society does not equal the state in my definition. :P


Ok, this right here shows you have no idea what you are talking about and need to go take a class on government.

Government exists to recognize and protect the inalieable natural rights of its citizens.

Don't feel bad though, a large percentage of americans think the same way. This is one reason why representative government and not straight democracy is a good idea.


Lol, you should go around posting that on the web. So many are wondering what this big 'gay agenda' is.

For those of you who are wondering, here is the real Gay Agenda. Don't tell anyone I told you. Shhhhh.......

Do you agree with that? What interest do you have in the relationships of other people? Also, out of curiosity, if the majority of people in a state voted to disallow marriage between members of different races, would you support the initiative as the "voice of the people"? Do you believe that majority opinion trumps individual rights?

You're trotting out a tautology. Marriage is what it is because that is how it is currently defined. The question is more one of what it should be. Marriage (the symbol of a deep, personal and meaningful relationship.. er for the most part) is a private matter and decision between two people as to the nature of their relationship. That we must obtain a contract for it on public record is largely a matter of defacto tradition remiscent of other annoying bureaucratic crap. So I would ask you this - why do you think it should fall under the purview of the state to serve as "witness" to personal, intimate relationships (careful, try to avoid expressions like "The Greater Good" )

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It's not a debate, it's inevitable, let it go conservatives. When you poll people 19-24 on this issue they are overwhelmingly supportive. This is the last generation of a country without gay marriage. Life will go on.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

That's good fiction, now how about the truth???

Your income tax is PRIVATE, but the State (or US) recognizes it. You see , it all depends upon your definition of Private.

Most courts in the land found that the separation of the right to marry based along sexual rights precludes the ‘given’ right against blacks, whites etc marrying………theirs a difference here…the male female make up of the marriage make up as we understand it is just that, a given that a lot more than less psyches back up, more than 3 out of every 4 agree, to raise a child….and that is key as marriage was built and is recognized as a union so as to pursue and add to the ability to procreate a human…..and provide it with a multi layered environment that leads to a stability that absent, leads to poorer chances in life etc….

there’s a plethora of factual studies to back this up…..there are nuances that each child takes from EACH of its parent….each according to their needs and cherish the differences as well as the similarities…but the duality is key.....

each child keys on those differences between gender parents and selects what to assimilate or use….to upset this balance would upset the delicate balance of humanity and nature…...Lionel Tiger has a lot to say about this…you can google a myriad of articles which bare this out. There’s a lot more going on with a child’s upbringing than what the surface or gender teachers wants us to believe…...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

That is not the case. There is a good percentage of marriages where the couple decide not to have children.

What a great, refreshing and ultimately more intelligent take on the subject than kinetic's boy-has-a-penis-girl-has-a-vagina sort of non-starter. Lionel Tiger is indeed a capacity within the field of analytic study of human behavior. Of course, he's right down my alley since his work sets off from biological principles and he never looses touch of that perspective. Which, in my mind, makes him by far the most well-chosen source I've seen in any of the threads on same-sex marriage.

However, if you're going to use Lionel Tiger exclusively on same-sex marriage and it's effects on family, you must consider his views of marriage as such. Here's a quote that I'll allow myself to cite although I have no valid info on the source and neither does the site I took it from:

"It is...astonishing that...marriage is still legally allowed. If nearly half of anything ended so disastrously, the government would surely ban it immediately. If half the tacos served in restaurants caused dysentery, if half the people learning karate broke their palms, if only 6% of people who went on roller coasters damaged their middle ears, the public would be clamoring for action."

The thing is that Lionel Tiger doesn't write off homosexuality as unnatural. On the other hand, he doesn't write off the taboo of same-sex bonding or the increasing taboo of what goes beyond simple bonding - in particular male bonding which he's been studying in depth - as a natural response to homosexuality, either. This means that, when it comes to societal sanctioning of relationships, the taboo becomes a determining factor instead of the actual relationships in question. A cultural diminishment of the taboo will reverse the effects of the taboo - as is shown by lots of countries where such taboo has faded - but it will not make same-sex relations any more unnatural, or natural for that matter, than they already are.

Here's the deal. We accept potentially horrific situations regarding opposite-sex marriages simply because there is no taboo associated with opposite-sex marriage. When you talk about children's upbringing, we accept marriages that'll bring any kids - born in or out of wedlock - into any state of distress. Broken homes, shifting partners, single parenting, drunk parenting (heck, literally no parenting as well), wife-beating, husband-beating, all sorts of physical and psychological abuse. You name it, we accept it. Not in terms of behavior, mind you, but in terms of marriage. Ad nauseam. Just as long as everything is based on opposite-sex marriage. The prisons are bursting with kids from those kinds of marriages. And we accept them. Just as long as they're opposite-sex marriages.

That's basically what Lionel Tiger expounds on when it comes to marriage. Any marriage. And it doesn't say a whole lot about same-sex marriages. Even less so about kids in same-sex marriages. But it says alot about the taboos.

So yes, there's a lot more going on with a child's upbringing than whomever will tell you. The things is just that far the most of what's not being told refers to opposite-sex marriage. And it's accepted as de facto because opposite-sex marriage is the de facto for those "untold" factors of a child's upbringing.