Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Group marriage may well have it's day in court sometime in the future; but as we've been over time and time again, children and barnyard animals will never be able to provide the informed legal consent necessary to enter into a civil legal contract. You're slope is so slippery, I think you just fell off the cliff.

Fortunately, times change and the attitudes of the people change with them. Twenty years before school integration was forced, how many people would have said the idea of black and white children going to school together was ludicrous and unthinkable? Twenty years before women's suffrage, how many people would have said letting women vote was just laughable?

The change has been much slower than you think. It's taken a long time and a lot of brave people to get us where we are today. People that were willing to risk losing the jobs, their homes, or even their lives to stand up and say "I am gay, I am just like you, and I deserve the same rights you have." As more and more gay people had the courage to do so; more an more average people came to realize that it is actually rediculous and ludricrous to want to treat your coworker, your friend, your neighbor or your brother as a second class citizen. I promise you; that if you had a gay son or daughter, you would still love them just as much. You'd still wish for them to be happy above all else. And even you would want them to to be able to protect the assets that they work hard for.

Don't get so hung up on the word. My wife is my wife and has been for twelve years now. We are married in our hearts, and the hearts of everyone that knows us. What we need now is the same legal protections that any other couple who has chosen to share their lives together has. I'm sorry that is such a hang up for folks like you... but do you really think it's fair to let your personal hang ups be such a detrimental road block to the well being of others? You are more than welcome to believe with all your tiny little heart that gay marriages are not real marriages. You are not however welcome to let that belief stand in the way of our 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.

I really respect your calm, no non-sense approach and answers to so much attacks against gay marriage.
I am not gay, and I am deeply frustrated with the narrow mindedness and total misinformation that so many people seem to harbor!

You are exactly the type of spoke person we need (both the gay community and the community of reasonable people who strive for a day when equality will be totally accepted) to bring this issue forward.

Thank you for keeping a clear head.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Group marriage may well have it's day in court sometime in the future; but as we've been over time and time again, children and barnyard animals will never be able to provide the informed legal consent necessary to enter into a civil legal contract. You're slope is so slippery, I think you just fell off the cliff.

Fortunately, times change and the attitudes of the people change with them. Twenty years before school integration was forced, how many people would have said the idea of black and white children going to school together was ludicrous and unthinkable? Twenty years before women's suffrage, how many people would have said letting women vote was just laughable?

The change has been much slower than you think. It's taken a long time and a lot of brave people to get us where we are today. People that were willing to risk losing the jobs, their homes, or even their lives to stand up and say "I am gay, I am just like you, and I deserve the same rights you have." As more and more gay people had the courage to do so; more an more average people came to realize that it is actually rediculous and ludricrous to want to treat your coworker, your friend, your neighbor or your brother as a second class citizen. I promise you; that if you had a gay son or daughter, you would still love them just as much. You'd still wish for them to be happy above all else. And even you would want them to to be able to protect the assets that they work hard for.

Don't get so hung up on the word. My wife is my wife and has been for twelve years now. We are married in our hearts, and the hearts of everyone that knows us. What we need now is the same legal protections that any other couple who has chosen to share their lives together has. I'm sorry that is such a hang up for folks like you... but do you really think it's fair to let your personal hang ups be such a detrimental road block to the well being of others? You are more than welcome to believe with all your tiny little heart that gay marriages are not real marriages. You are not however welcome to let that belief stand in the way of our 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.

That is exactly the kind of thing I would have been told 20 or 30 years ago if I'd have said;


"Pretty soon we're going to be arguing about whether or not it's right to let two men or two women get 'married.'


It's very convenient to laugh off and/or dismiss what I've said as 'a slippery slope too far,' but it only serves your own interest and opinion to do so. It just proves that you're unwilling to see what is happening right in front of you, and to admit that you're arguing in support of something that simply has no good reason to be in favor of.


You continue with an argument and comparison that has no bearing or applicability to this issue. This issue is an issue of sexual behaviour NOT unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin, and can in no way be compared to it. Of course it is continuously attempted, so we can hopefully be brainwashed into believing it is a "civil rights" issue like the ones based on race in the past. It doesn't work in real life, it might work in the coccoon reality some of us create in our heads, but it doesn't work in reality - period.



The assertion that homosexuals are a minority group under current civil rights laws is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:

1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]

2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.

3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to try to claim minority status based on behavior.



....... continuing on, now it is I that has a "hangup," in spite of the fact that it isn't I that is in denial about the design of my body.


You see - no, you probably never will - the problem isn't "everyone else" or "people like me," the problem is people with sexual "hangups," or 'addictions.'

There are plenty of them and "homosexuality" is just one of them.

America is just experiencing the effect(s) of tolerating and even promoting this destructive behaviour. Deny that it is a slippery slope leading to worse, deny that it is a destructive behaviour, frame the arguments for it in ways that make those of us opposed to it seem silly, or even dangerous and try to sell it to the culture. This is where we're at now, and we can clearly see how these things 'progress.'

Take part in and enjoy your self destructive sexual behaviour, but give up trying to sell it to me as a "right" protected by the 14th amendment, that isn't what it is.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

and barnyard animals will never be able to provide the informed legal consent necessary to enter into a civil legal contract. You're slope is so slippery, I think you just fell off the cliff.

I am for gay rights and marriages....but I must admit Captain trips has a slight point.

I recall about 2 years ago, a women was pushing for rights to marry her dog.

so , I can see the matter coming up again in the future.

Originally Posted by headbanger

I am for gay rights and marriages....but I must admit Captain trips has a slight point.

I recall about 2 years ago, a women was pushing for rights to marry her dog.

so , I can see the matter coming up again in the future.

I believe that isolated case was a spoof!

This woman was probably trying to push Captain trips' point of concern to the rest of society. . .and apparently she succeeded with some!

Originally Posted by Sadanie

I believe that isolated case was a spoof!

This woman was probably trying to push Captain trips' point of concern to the rest of society. . .and apparently she succeeded with some!

apparently some people have a closed mind on just how stupid the human race can be !

I agree it would never pass...but that doesn't mean people won't try.

Originally Posted by headbanger

apparently some people have a closed mind on just how stupid the human race can be !

I agree it would never pass...but that doesn't mean people won't try.

Well, in history, the only incidence I could find were "Intuit legends," or "India based marriage between a couple of children and dogs to protect them from evil spirits" or a Japanese or Chinese comedy!

Maybe your belief in the stupidity of the human race is more of a "close mind" phenomena than my own faith in the human race?

And even if you believe that some people would REALLY try such a thing. . .is that a reason in your mind to refuse REAL people, both consenting adults, the right to marry?

Originally Posted by headbanger

apparently some people have a closed mind on just how stupid the human race can be !

I agree it would never pass...but that doesn't mean people won't try.

It's not that they have a closed mind

There was also a case of a man who wanted to marry his horse. Yes, I read it, it was a real story.

Crazy crazy and stupid.

There was a man who got put in jail for fornicating with the umbrella hole in someones back yard picknick table too - another one, ...yes, I read it, it was a real story. Anyways, someone photographed this fellow doing the deed with the table and called the cops

Yes, it's an amazing thing just how stupid and sick people can be.

I wonder if this mook is going to claim he has a civil right to fornicate with any inanimate object he cares to ... since it's inanimate and he doesn't NEED to have consent or whatnot.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

It's not that they have a closed mind

There was also a case of a man who wanted to marry his horse. Yes, I read it, it was a real story.

Crazy crazy and stupid.

There was a man who got put in jail for fornicating with the umbrella hole in someones back yard picknick table too - another one, ...yes, I read it, it was a real story. Anyways, someone photographed this fellow doing the deed with the table and called the cops

Yes, it's an amazing thing just how stupid and sick people can be.

I wonder if this mook is going to claim he has a civil right to fornicate with any inanimate object he cares to ... since it's inanimate and he doesn't NEED to have consent or whatnot.

Those are extreme cases and yes, those involved are probably a little on the crazy side. The case of screwing the picnic table though....well, legally, what he did wrong was screw someone else's table. Had it been in his own house, he could screw any inanimate object he wants and no laws would be broken.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Well, in history, the only incidence I could find were "Intuit legends," or "India based marriage between a couple of children and dogs to protect them from evil spirits" or a Japanese or Chinese comedy!

Maybe your belief in the stupidity of the human race is more of a "close mind" phenomena than my own faith in the human race?

And even if you believe that some people would REALLY try such a thing. . .is that a reason in your mind to refuse REAL people, both consenting adults, the right to marry?

I recommend you get sleep.
I am not against gay marriage, which I stated above.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

The assertion that homosexuals are a minority group under current civil rights laws is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:

1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]

2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.

3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to try to claim minority status based on behavior.

I don't want to get into a debate as to whether homosexuality is an immutable biological characteristic. There is plenty enough evidence to suggest that it is, but nothing concrete yet. However, it is actually totally irrelevant whether it is 100% choice or 100% biological. It matters not one whit either way.

It is not one's sexuality that prevents one from entering into a same sex legal union. It is the combined gender of the two people who wish to enter into that union. There is not one other civil legal contract that defines the genders of those who may enter into it. Not one. There's a reason for that. Were it only legal to give your financial or medical POA to someone of the opposite sex, that would be gender discrimination. It would never hold up in any court of law. We all have the civil right to enter into any civil legal agreement with whatever consenting adult we choose. The courts will bear this out soon enough.

I notice that you didn't address the "what if" of you yourself having a homosexual child? Did you give that a fair moment's consideration and think about whether you'd want your child denied equal protection? Or did you just totally dismiss because you'd never raise someone that "chose" to be homosexual?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

It's not that they have a closed mind

There was also a case of a man who wanted to marry his horse. Yes, I read it, it was a real story.

Crazy crazy and stupid.

There was a man who got put in jail for fornicating with the umbrella hole in someones back yard picknick table too - another one, ...yes, I read it, it was a real story. Anyways, someone photographed this fellow doing the deed with the table and called the cops

Yes, it's an amazing thing just how stupid and sick people can be.

I wonder if this mook is going to claim he has a civil right to fornicate with any inanimate object he cares to ... since it's inanimate and he doesn't NEED to have consent or whatnot.

He probably has that right. . .just not in public!
And there have always been crazies and sick people. . .looking to them to make a decision about gay rights is . .crazy also!

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I don't want to get into a debate as to whether homosexuality is an immutable biological characteristic. There is plenty enough evidence to suggest that it is, but nothing concrete yet. However, it is actually totally irrelevant whether it is 100% choice or 100% biological. It matters not one whit either way.

There will never be any concrete evidence that it is an immutable biological characteristic, because it isn't. It is a sexual behaviour one engages in by choice, like fellatio or cunnilingus or 69ing or threesomes or bondage or any of the other thousands of ways people have found to "get their rocks off."

That itself is another battle for truth. There are plenty of people who stopped taking part in homosexual sex because it wasn't "who they were" but something they chose to DO.

There are websites trying to explain to us that there "is no such thing as an ex-gay person."

There are websites that show people who used to take part in homosexual sex acts and decided to stop doing so and tell the truth about it and why they stopped doing it. - of course the people who want to make "gay" be seen as normal, unchangeable and 'ok' are fighting like hell against these people with more of the same lies and propaganda typical of the "gay rights activist" crowd. This crap can only be marketed with lies, propoganda, half-truths and "flooding" the media and entertainment industry with "gays" and "gay issues."

I have to give them credit, they've been quite successful at marketing an evil as a good using these methods. They're smart and they have lots of money, that's all that it means though.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

It is not one's sexuality that prevents one from entering into a same sex legal union. It is the combined gender of the two people who wish to enter into that union. There is not one other civil legal contract that defines the genders of those who may enter into it. Not one. There's a reason for that. Were it only legal to give your financial or medical POA to someone of the opposite sex, that would be gender discrimination. It would never hold up in any court of law. We all have the civil right to enter into any civil legal agreement with whatever consenting adult we choose. The courts will bear this out soon enough.

You seem to have a good strong faith in that last statement. I would advise against it, but that's your choice.

Homosexuals already have all of the same rights of every other citizen. They’re protected not only by the U.S. constitution, but by many other hard fought civil rights battles. It’s not about property rights, because even unmarried persons who are not partners have equal rights in the joint ownership of property.

As for non-business human sexual relationships involving the states recognition, if it was "equal rights" they wanted, it would be equal rights they would be trying to get, rather than demanding a redefinition of the Biblical definition of the word marriage.

This small group of people really do not need to have a word redefined just for them and it makes no sense that they keep demanding that we do so. Unless of course there's a lot more behind it than just "equal rights."

Earlier you advised me against being so hung up on the WORD marriage. I have to ask you, is it really I that am "so hung up on the word marriage" ?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I notice that you didn't address the "what if" of you yourself having a homosexual child? Did you give that a fair moment's consideration and think about whether you'd want your child denied equal protection? Or did you just totally dismiss because you'd never raise someone that "chose" to be homosexual?

If any of my kids decide to take part in that kind of activity, that is their choice.

They would be "denied" nothing, why would I be concerned ? If I lived in the middle east or Africa somewhere I would be more worried about them. As for money, these "relationships" seem to do quite well financially as has already been noted:

.... Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]

My concern would be more for their health and character which at a certain age is entirely in their own hands.

At some point in our lives, we realize that it is foolish and impossible to expect "the govt." or some "govt. contract" to "protect us" from ANYTHING. Gay, straight ... it doesn't matter - people make arrangements ahead of time if they're smart. People make arrangements away and "out of sight" of the criminals that have BECOME "the govt."

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

If any of my kids decide to take part in that kind of activity, that is their choice.

People can and do decide what sexual activites we endulge in. We do not however choose who we are attracted to. Can you tell me what age you were when you decided to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or has it just always been that way for you? If your child's natural attractions were toward the same sex... you are saying that you would prefer them to live a life without true romantic love? You would want them to go through the motions of life, just immitating what they think you and society expect of them? You would not wish them the true happiness of falling in love with someone that captivates their heart, body, and soul? Someone that makes them want to be a better person?