posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 01:01 AM
For starters, my member name comes from when I was about 14 and a bunch of us were in a swimming pool and someone goes, 'man you really have small
nipples'. Nothing more, nothing less...where the plumber comment comes from I don't care to know.
The reasoning behind my belief that homosexuals wanting legalized gay marriage are not interested in it purely for love comes from my statement
immediately after what you quoted. In our society, marriage is legitimized by two institutions...the church and the goverment. If someone is
interested in marrying purely for love then what do they care who considers their relationship legitimate, be it the church, the government, me, you ,
or the dog on the sidewalk? If it's purely for love then why do they need a certificate to tell them they love each other. The very fact that gay
marriage is even an issue reveals that there is a motive present in addition to (note I didn't say in place of) love. I'm not saying that the
additional motive is not worth discussing, I'm saying that this appeal to emotion of 'oh they just want to be with the one they love' is bogus. If
love is truly all they need then they certainly don't need some stamp of approval from anyone. You'll have to help me out with your divorce
argument. I am unsure as to what you were getting at. The best answer I have is that they are 'docked' by having all the rights, privileges and
responsibilities of marriage removed after leaving their union.
As to what's wrong with gays having the same rights as everyone else...nothing? They already do...so long as you consider 'everyone else' as
individuals. My point is that married couples are granted further rights than non-married couples, and by this the government encourages what it
feels is a behavior beneficial to society. For gay couples to be granted the same rights as married couples (not just the same rights as all of us)
the government (voters) must be convinced that gay marriage is as beneficial to society as traditional marriage is. Tax dollars are not the driver
here...although your figure of 35% of our tax dollars going to the war is ludicrous since the entire defense budget for 04 only made up about 20% of
the total government spending. Yes 20% is a greater monetary value than what additional costs would most likely be incurred through granting further
rights to homosexuals wanting to marry. That is irrelevant. If I am not in favor of something why should I vote for something that costs me 1$ more?
Again, they want their rights extended to the same level as traditional married couples. They want me to grant them this. They have to convince me
that gay marriage is as beneficial to the society I live in as traditional marriage.
I'm glad you are willing to allow the American voters to decide on this issue, as many who chime in on gay marriage seem to think that it somehow
should not be up to the voters, but should be decided by some court (left or right leaning). I agree with you that this issue has become a political
tool, but every issue becomes a political tool (aside from an anti-puppy beating bill). It is a tool used by both sides. That's politics. What's
As far as looking into current events, I have, but just in case I imagined the last year, I rechecked, and yes far more states have banned gay
marriage via their constitution or through legislation than have accepted homosexual unions. A cursory reading of wikipedia can tell you that much.
Maybe I missed your point so I'll leave that point open for now.
I don't know if you think you 'caught me' or something quoting what I openly put in my original post regarding my personal disapproval of the
homosexual lifestyle. I stated that I didn't care what they do with each other. I even stated that the government should not be able to intervene
in their relationships...such as with the texas anti-sodomy law. Just because I don't agree with someone's lifstyle doesn't mean I think the
individual rights granted to them under the constitution should be removed. I assume that line is where someone clever will quote me and say 'aha,
gotcha'. One more time here, my current understanding of the constitution is that marriage is an additional enumerated right delivered via the
states. Thus is is up to the individual states (or the federal government, should a national constitutional amendment be passed) to decide how they
will grant rights that are additive to the U.S. constitution. So if the gay community wants those additional rights then they have to convince the
voters that it benefits them (society) to grant those rights. To this point I have not been convinced that their lifestyle is as beneficial to
society as traditional marriage, so I vote to withhold the additional rights they ask for.
Religious reasons for my decision...don't make me laugh. Fear of the gay community...no I don't think I'm going to get cooties from them if they
are around, or that they're going to come murder me in my sleep. If you had not 'snipped' the rest of what I wrote I would not have had to
reiterate the first half of the previous paragraph. Instead of 'snipping', convince me by making a legal argument that gay unions have been a right
originally granted, and perpetually denied, since the founding of this nation. Instead of telling me to deny ignorance (how cute), convince me by
showing me how gay unions benefit me.