How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

Right, but the truth is that the average american DOES (to an extent) have a say.

So lets change some minds instead of just ridiculing them.

 

Believe me shane, you will never convince a fundamentalsit of any religion about anything that does not agree with their belief system.....Huck has made it clear that he has no problem with not allowing gays to have equal rights....what kind of arguement is going to convince a person like that of anything?

 

The intolerance of so many americans just baffles me. This is what I dislike about neocons - is their fearfulness. They cannot comprehend individual responsibility. How on earth two gay guys across the street is going to have a negative affect on my marriage, I simply cannot comprehend. If two loving individuals believe in their union - outside influences should have zero affect on it.

I think it makes more sense to take away the legal rights of partners in a traditional marriage than prevent same sex partners from receiving legal rights. Equal rights should be available to all.

 

I used to be a fundamentalist.

I used to want pray in schools.

I encouraged my parent to vote for George 4 years ago.

I cheered when a columbus man burned a gay pride flag.

And now i'm ashamed of all of that.

What changed my viewpoint?

People who were willing to have a meaningful discussion about my bigotry and it's flaws without dousing gasoline on the fire...

 

marriage is a corporation

 

If landlords are not required to rent to unmarried heterosexual couples, then they shouldn't be required to rent to gay couples. Besides, I seriously doubt that gays are routinely denied housing. I can't imagine that many landlords really care who their tenants sleep with.

I don't think that any sexual conduct is granted special legal status. Are swingers specifically protected from discrimination?

You can will your estate to anyone you wish.

If the survivor is impoverished, he can apply for welfare. I'd be surprised if this were often the case, though, since gays are statistically wealthier than the average population.

This arrogant elitism perfectly illustrates why "enlightened" liberals will never win this policy debate in the public square and why they've instead had to rely on their activist cohorts in the judiciary to advance their social agenda. It also illustrates why this agenda will likely be thwarted as many states amend their constitutions this November. Liberals in Missouri thought they could defeat such an amendment by holding a special election earlier this month, but it passed 70-30! All you self-proclaimed champions of "tolerance" should rethink your smug condescension toward your fellow citizens.

 

Leaving work, heading home.

see you guys around.

 

God created Adam and Eve! Not Adam and Steave!!!

 

quote: All you self-proclaimed champions of "tolerance" should rethink your smug condescension toward your fellow citizens.

All you non-evolving Christians who *know* you are right should not make any comments about being condescending.

Missouri is full of dumbasses, is that a surprise, perhaps you too should move to middle America where you will not meet anyone whose views differ from yours

 

Any other pointless slogans you'd like to spout?



Can I get a "Four more years!"

Or maybe a "Fox news sucks!"



BTW, freakyjoeman, growing your hair out in dreads is not a form of radical expression, you actually have to think outside the box.

 

At least I don't claim to worship at the altar of "tolerance," unlike you supposedly "broad-minded" types . . .

Maybe all such "dumbasses" who don't share your profound wisdom should be rounded up and sent to re-education camps.

Perhaps you should learn to actually engage views that differ from your.

 

who ever said i was tolerant...i am merely speaking out against fundamentalism. i am not worshipping at any altar, capiche?

i have asked you several questions, which you have conveniently ignored...not sure how else to engage you.
and about Missouri, there is no need to send them to re-education camps, i'm fine with them ruling their own little domain.

 

feels another song coming on!!!

Must resist!!!

 

Hey! Radical expression! Where can I get me some o' that? Is it at Hot Topic, or maybe I should read more Neitzche? Expand yer mind! Think outside the box! Wait, isn't that jus another pointless slogan? Hmmmm...did I really jus get dreads to freak people out? To try to deffirentiate myself from the herd, while in turn, becoming a member of a different collective? Or did I do it cuz I like the style, an it looks particulerly awsome on me? 'Ny-ways, i gots no quarrels with gay peoples, the govt. should jus let the poor bastards marry an be miserable like everyone else. Oh, an yer jus jealous 'cause my hair's so much more bodacious than yers.

 

Wait, I'm confused if the nuclear family is the building block of society, what will happen to society if it changes? Is change not good? What about all of the people who choose not to have the nuclear family? I know many people these days that choose not to have children. Are they tearing down the traditional values of the family, or are they just choosing to live the life they want to live, childless. Then there are men and women who choose not to marry at all. Should we get rid of these people because they are choosing not to be a part of the nuclear family? I mean they aren't out there making babies to populate the country, so they are fairly useless right? I really just don't understand the logic behind it is all. I'm not getting offended or attacking anyone I honestly don't get it.



And I also don't understand why this is such a big deal here in America, it really isn't a big deal in other countries. Someone is gay; who cares it isn't the main focus of their life. People don't really think about it elsewhere. You just are who you are. Sometimes the answer really is just that simple.

 

You left yourself wide open with this though Huck...

You say if landlords are not required. If. What if they are? Then do you believe that the landlord has to also rent to gay couples? I'm just asking because I'm not exactly sure where your view begins and ends. Because again, living together isn't getting married and it seemed like you had no problem with gays being gay or being together, just not married. Is this correct? So you would believe in some rights for gays just not all of them?

 

Huck-

I am not asking that sexual conduct be specifically protected. I am DENIED the same protection that everyone else enjoys, because I am gay. That is the difference. I can be DENIED housing for being gay. I can be evicted for being gay. I can be fired from my job, in a "right to work" state, just for being gay. I am not asking for anything in regards to sexual behavior. I want equal, NOT special protection as a citizen of the United States.

Do you see the difference?

Also, I could have a legal contract drawn up by a lawyer, naming my partner next of kin. If I were in an automobile accident, and my partner had the contract with him, the hospital could still deny visitation. The validity of the contract would be up to the individual reviewing it at the hospital. There is NO legal protection for my relationship. This actually happened in Maryland, and the injured partner died before the other partner received visitation approval. I wish I remembered the name of the case.

 

Most employers pay the majority of the premiums for the employee, spouse, and dependents. I don't think many employers would or could cover the majority of premiums for anyone living in a household. That also sets up a system that is very easy to abuse. This could also be addressed by allowing gays to marry, or "civil union" if you prefer. Then there would be legal documentation.

 

I am not asking to obliterate the complementary male-female union from the historic definition of marriage. Where does this come from? I am asking to be treated equally under the law. You have yet to address this.

You have offered plenty of opinion, and IMO, it has been snidely offered. I have not dismissed it, though. I have considered it, and I am still waiting to see why, if I am allowed equal protection, it will obliterate marraige.

Again, I see the correlation in your article. Many things could be correlated with the decline of the family and the institution of marraige. I am still waiting to see causation.

 

Yeah, "silly faggots, dicks are for chicks"

ha ha ha

Give me a fucking break. Is this the most intelligent thing you could add? In a later post, you mentioned that you have no problem with gays. Do you see how catch phrases like this help hatred and ignorance to proliferate throughout our society.

Statements like these do not offend me personally, but I hope you do see how socially irresponsible they are, even if meant to be funny.

(ps it is Steve, not Steave)