That man sounds exactly like that grapes dude, who im sure is just around the corner.

dumb, da dumb dumb dumb. If this attitude were taken by everybody no minority group (which includes everybody, to a degree) would be "alowed" to exist.

absolutely sickening

Oh my, why am I not surprised....

Why don't these GOP senators say what they really feel? It's always "Well its not against homosexuals....its just in defense of Marriage....or to protect the children...or the American Way...everyone will marry Animals..." Blah Blah.

They should all just admit that its because they're all homophobic....

Wow, that's probably one of the more elitist statements that I've heard come out of him. What a schmuck.

To think that it's straight people who "allow" us to exist, what a ridiculous notion.

And it's a wonder how these people get elected and then pursue their agenda of hate and opression.

And as the above poster said, it is us who allow "them" to exist, as far as the senate goes, and he should do well to remember that.

~Keeper

I believe the quote meant that the couples are allowed to exist, as in they are not prohibited or outlawed, and that they do not require any "special" status.

I totally agree with that fact. This entire debate is waged over silly nomenclature.

Why can't "Marriage" be defined in the context of religion and marriages be performed in churches as they have been for 1000's of years.

"Legal Unions" can be done in court houses by legal officials, and as long as the reasoning, benefits, and tax statuses are equal, what is the problem? Atheists, Same-Sex Couples, or anyone else should be able to buy a license and become a "legal union", but the religious zealots are happy that "marriage" is all theirs!

In addition, why would someone have to be homosexual to be involved in a "same-sex union"? I have known many old women that lived together that would have benefited greatly from this change! "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" is a prime example of the sillyness of the whole issue!

Historically, governments rewarded child-rearing marriages, because they produced more tax-payers, workers, and soldiers. Gay couples would not have fulfilled this need, but today population is not a significant issue.

Are there any verified sites that have this information?

I would like to see the moment when that "ugly , hatefull" Western democracy world will fall...and the winners: Antychristian islamists and "Gays" meet face to face...the moment when terror will show on their faces... no more mocking of Pope and religious persons, just try the same with the Immams );-) no more "gay mariages" issue, no more ""gay prides"
Afterwards will be a lot of islamic converts...or either...Pink Freedom Fighters?! );-)
Try to digg it: even in democracy to TOLERATE is not the same as to ACCEPT.

Peace

Ah yes, the reemergence of the unique patter of the endagered homophobius spoutica, also known by the local term, two-faced chicken pecker.

If I recall my college textbook correctly, they're usually observed migrating out of office in the fall, when their nests become soiled.

Although their markings are similar, they are a distinctly different species from the spotted hyperbole, and can be identified by their puffed, red chest during mating season.

Repeatedly the GOP and the hard right open their mouths and remove any doubt about their lack of both clues and compassion.

What is that old saying better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt?

Although I do not agree with his opinion of homosexuals.....I think this is being misinterpreted. I believe he meant: gays can be gays - they are allowed to be so just like straights are. That is how I see it.

With that said. When will people learn that the government needs to be out of bedrooms. Out of our pockets and out of our health care. They wont. Because people keep voting these people into office and supporting their views. The people seem to want more and more government intrusion into our lives - and that includes our bedrooms.

No thanks.


[edit on 7/2/2009 by greeneyedleo]

What amazes me is that most of the historical figures that these idiots admire, from Alexander the Great to Leonidas to the Roman emperors were mostly bi, leaning to gay.

I truly don't understand what their problem is. If two men or two women want to get married, more power to them. I admire their commitment and willingness to share a life together. Doesn't effect me one way or the other, though; it's their private business. Strikes me that what bothers the religionists is that it cuts into their monopoly on defining relationship rules, and removes a whipping boy to motivate the ignorant, excuse me, the "faithful".

I say outlaw religions that proselytize, and forbid compulsory baptism of children. Religion should be an informed choice of adults, not the forced indoctrination of unsuspecting and uncritical children.