America catches up to the modern world (slowly)

[Otto]

I don't believe Homosexualty is Immoral and I have a few 'gay' friends. (Maybe more that I don't know about)  

  What I don't agree with is that minorities  in a society are more important than the majority.  It's not necessary to pander to every group that shouts 'Victim' the loudest when their small wants clash with the majority view of what our 'culture' is.

[storch]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.

What the heck are you guys worried about... really?

*sniffs*  Ok, I'll bite.

Are you saying that humans can't control their sexual urges?  

Do you believe in the existance of a "gay" gene?

Is homosexuality natural?

I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Social experimentation on any level at the expense of us all however does concern me.

This latest folly from a State and region that has consistently brought us most of whats currently wrong in America comes as no surprise.  I believe this unmitigated Bull from Massachusetts will be a good thing.

Perhaps this event will have a galvanizing effect on the middle of the road folks. Maybe the nation will deliver a clear mandate to the President. Then we either pull back from the edge of the abyss or plunge headlong into a catastrophic tomorrow.  In any event the first Tuesday in November of 2004 will be a critical, pivotal day for The United States of America.

What an exciting time to be alive, a battle for the soul of America.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Otto
I don't believe Homosexualty is Immoral and I have a few 'gay' friends. (Maybe more that I don't know about)  

  What I don't agree with is that minorities  in a society are more important than the majority.  It's not necessary to pander to every group that shouts 'Victim' the loudest when their small wants clash with the majority view of what our 'culture' is.

I'm not sure you thought that post through.

There was a time when interracial marriage was abhored by the majority of Americans. Should it have been illegal?

"Small Wants"  - How small would it be to you if someone told you that you couldn't marry your wife?

[txmx]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.

What the heck are you guys worried about... really?

Yeah after all Bill Clinton was left handed:aok

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by storch
*sniffs*  Ok, I'll bite.

Are you saying that humans can't control their sexual urges?  

Do you believe in the existance of a "gay" gene?

Is homosexuality natural?

I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Social experimentation on any level at the expense of us all however does concern me.

This latest folly from a State and region that has consistently brought us most of whats currently wrong in America comes as no surprise.  I believe this unmitigated Bull from Massachusetts will be a good thing.

Perhaps this event will have a galvanizing effect on the middle of the road folks. Maybe the nation will deliver a clear mandate to the President. Then we either pull back from the edge of the abyss or plunge headlong into a catastrophic tomorrow.  In any event the first Tuesday in November of 2004 will be a critical, pivotal day for The United States of America.

What an exciting time to be alive, a battle for the soul of America.

I believe that there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is indeed "natural". From studies of homosexual bonding in animals to descriptions of the improved ability to pass on the family genes through assitance by (gay) family members in rearing and providing for the young. You can feel free to look it up for yourself.

Still waiting for someone to post what scares them. Try to do it without the slippery slope to goat marriage though. that's just silly.

[myelo]

What's the problem? It has always been legal for gay people to get married.






Just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

In the words of govoner Schwartnegger "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

[DREDIOCK]

Im not particularly for it as it seems un natural.
But in the end my feeling is
Do what the hell you want. Just leave me the hell alone and dont flaunt it in my or my childrens faces lest I beat your head in with a 2x4

[storch]

MT,

I thought I was clear.

I'm not scared per se.  Concerned though yes.  You wouldn't understand because of the broad chasm that separates our world views.

Not wanting to belabor the point I thought it might be prudent to leave well 'nuff alone.  But since you insist.

What I believe will occur is that at some point God will either have to deal with our national sin on a national level or otherwise be forced to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you will take an open minded look at at the archeological evidence you will see that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found in shallow water, under the dead sea (fitting locale) brimstone and all.

On a side note.  have you flame tested your asbestos underware?  you should.  you're gonna need'm

No offense intended

[txmx]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I believe that there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is indeed "natural

Well you find a way for two men to create a child from having sex together then I will agree with ya there MT.
Till then I will always call It for what It Is !
A lifestyle choice .

[lazs2]

If you are thinking of marriage as a religious institution or combined state.religious institution then by current standards it needs to be between men and women only.

If you are thinking that marrige is a state sponsored institution only and that it should be rewarded with tax benifiets or other benifiets because raising a family is in the best interest of the state then it should be between a man and a woman... even tho it is possible for a man and a woman to be married and not have children and it is possible for a gay couple to adopt... it is far more likely that the families will consist of a married man and woman... enough so that if you are going to subsidize families (if you think the family is important) you should reward only unions between men and women... the resources only go so far.. you need to maximize the good (if there is good in family).

If, on the other hand you believe that marrige is simply a commitment to share life and goods... A legal contract.... And, you do not wish to bestow any tax breaks or extort any money for it from the rest of the populace... then, there is no reason to not allow state sponsored contracts.   This would mean that No marriage would get any benifiet from the rest of us... no health care for spouses unless it was paid for... no tax break for couples etc.

lazs

[Thud]

Originally posted by Eagler


does this mean Thud will live to see the day he can live with his sheep, legally?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH*




*(Free translation)

[Thud]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thud, you could also bring up the fact that Greek and Roman societies collapsed once homosexuality was accepted.


But I bet you'd call it coincidence.

You could also argue that once the Christian faith became more ubiquitous in Rome, the empire fell...

[scout]

Originally posted by myelo
What's the problem? It has always been legal for gay people to get married.






Just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

In the words of govoner Schwartnegger "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

The 'man' 'woman' thing seems important for the anti-crowd.

Perhaps someone would like to give criteria to define who is a man and who is a woman ?

To aid Bush with his constitutional amendment if nothing else.

(and ask yourself if you are *really* sure you will pass whatever criteria you come up with for the gender you believe you belong too)

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by txmx
Well you find a way for two men to create a child from having sex together then I will agree with ya there MT.
Till then I will always call It for what It Is !
A lifestyle choice .

So you only have sex to make babies? Bummer for you.

[ravells]

And some people, mt, don't even know that:

Childless couple ignorant of sex

A COUPLE WHO desperately wanted a child after eight years of marriage went to a fertility clinic where they were told: 'You must have sex to have a baby.'
We are not talking retarded people here, but a couple who were brought up in a religious environment  

The deeply religious couple, aged 30 and 36, had no fertility problems. But when asked how often they were having sex, they looked blank.

Doctors subjected them to a series of examinations and found they were both apparently fertile, and should have had no trouble conceiving.

A clinic spokesman said: 'When we asked them how often they had had sex, they looked blank, and said: "What do you mean?"

'We are not talking retarded people here, but a couple who were brought up in a religious environment who were simply unaware, after eight years of marriage, of the physical requirements necessary to procreate.'

The 30-year-old wife and her 36-year-old husband are now being given sex therapy lessons while the university clinic undertakes a study to try to find out if there are many other couple with a similar lack of sex education.

Ravs