pedro says:

#55 If by trolling you mean calling on your ilogical rants, then I’m trolling.

Mr. Fusion says:

Marriage is a religious rite

Not true. Marriage has never been about religion. It has always been a social construct for the pairing of couples and stability of a family. Religious sanctification is purely a ceremonial rite and will not make or break an official marriage. Marriage became religious in the western world when the Church comprised most of the civil functions of society.

Marriage is a Civil Exercise

True. It is in society’s interest for couples and families to be stable. Society is healthier when the people are healthy and happy. Marriage is actually a civil contract between the two people that want to bond for life. To break that contract requires a civil dissolution.

Churches will be forced to marry gays against their will

Not true. As private organizations no church is forced to perform or not perform any specific ceremony. The very few exceptions to that rule include ceremonies that break laws against drugs, criminal assault (sacrifice), or bigamy. No church can be forced to perform a ceremony. Many churches will not allow non-members to rent their church for a marriage. The Catholic Church is most famous for not performing religious rites to those they don’t think are whole or have broken “god’s” laws.

Civil Unions are the equivalent to marriage

No they are not. Until Brown v School Board Separate but Equal was an accepted condition. Since then, however, it is recognized that if we are all equal, then we must all have equal access to and protection of the same rights. Not just some rights.

Everyone has the equal right to marry

To suggest that everyone has the same right to marry a heterosexual partner is just wrong. This has narrowed the field to whom couples that want to bond may select from. So sure, Paddy-O may marry anyone he wants to; so long as they work at Radio Shack. That may work for Paddy-O but not for normal people that don’t frequent Paddy-O’s store.

This same civil restriction can’t apply to marrying someone only of a specific race, religion, nationality, State, number of teeth, political bent, or hair color. To continue that restriction to include two people of the same gender is wrong. Every argument against restricting marriage to specific groups, (race, religion, hair color, etc) can also be used to ALLOW marriage between two same sex people.

Marriage is about having and raising children

Only partly true. While the traditional nuclear family is important, fertility has never been a test or marriage requirement. Why, after having all her “plumbing” removed was my wife’s aunt allowed to marry at 60 something? There is no chance this partnership would have been able to procreate although I’m sure they would still try.

Many same sex couples share the raising of children from a previous heterosexual relationship or adopt. There is no evidence that homosexual parents corrupt, harm, or negatively influence their children’s sexual orientation or life. There is a lot of evidence that loving couples give children a better chance in life.

Alex says:

Also, to those saying “marriage is about the right to procreate”, that’s historically absolutely false.

The concept of marriage was a concept of property and estate law. Marriages were created such that when Person A married into Family B, he could inherit all of the money that Family B had. Children *did* play a role in that, in that they ensured a continuation of Family B, but this was only a secondary function of marriage and not an actual part and parcel of the institution of marriage. This is why marriage was mostly an administrative function in every Western society – and still continues to be largely an administrative function in many Eastern societies. Up until a very short time ago (some 500 – 800 years ago), the people getting married had no choice *at all* as to who they would marry. Your family said “Z” and you married “Z”, no questions asked.

That all changed when concepts of contracts and estate law changed. No longer was a bond to the land or family necessary to ensure the passage of chattel, and so things began to relax across the Western nations. We barely even think about such marriages today, until we (in the West) hear of some arranged marriage in India and think “Oh, gee, does that still go on? How silly.”

So to contend that marriage is for “procreation” is a baseless and futile argument.

(That being said – “Biblical marriage”, as in the marriage that is espoused in the Judeochristian Old Testament and the New Testament, probably *was*, at least in part, motivated less by the need to protect property than it was by the need to protect tribe – a more amorphous concept that does encompass procreation. Although, again, procreation was not its sole function. Just an important one.)

I bring this up only to illustrate that it is precisely this battle that is still being fought by gays today – the right to protect their family interests, not just their right to sleep with whomever they want. Civil unions don’t quite cut it, yet – though they legally could, as Ah_Yeah suggested. (Though I maintain that such a distinction would, societally, never be “equal” to a marriage, and thus would be an inappropriate detente in the matter.)

pedro says:

#67 Your reading skills are slipping…on second thought, I think they were never there.

Mister Mustard says:

%68 – ‘dro

STFU.

Mister Mustard says:

#71 – ‘dro

STFU

Fedup says:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82529

Another article proving what the real homosexual agenda is and why Prop 8 passed in Ca and every other state similar legislation was voted on. The people are on to the gay mafia.

Mister Mustard says:

#75 – Mr. Fusion

I think FuckUp is worried that if HE had to consider those questions for a discussion in class, the would have turned out to be a flaming homo. Just like Paddy-RAMBO is concerned that if civil rights are extended to same-sex couples, his wife will run away and marry a muff-muncher. That’s the only explanation I can come up with.

And I’m sure it escaped FuckUp’s notice, but almost every one of those questions is the exact same thing that’s often asked of gay people, except they swapped out “homosexual” with “heterosexual”.

However, I agree with you. This continuing use of the term “gay mafia” sure suggests some kind of mental imbalance.

Mister Mustard says:

#77 – Fuck’d-Up

>> you can’t win over public support when you
>>have old lesbians in the public schools brow
>>beating little straight boys.

I see where you got your name from, dude. “old lesbians in public schools brow beating little straight boys”?? WTF? Where did you get that bit of idiocy? From the Anti-Gay Mafia Militant Association handbook??

Sweet mother of God! You’re a kook!

I know this sort of thing

http://tinyurl.com/ytbazo

appeals to you, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I know they say à chacun son goût, but don’t expect regular folks to share your depraved longings.

Mister Mustard says:

#79 – FuckUp

Well. Now that you’ve gotten THAT off your chest, do you have anything intelligent to say?

Perhaps an explanation of wtf your are talking about with your diatribe regarding old lesbians browbeating little straight boys? Are you saying your article about about the young high-school and her senior class discussing sexuality somehow translates into “old lesbians” and “little straight boys”? It would be about as accurate as anything else you find in that laughable tabloid World “News” Daily. Haw! That yellow journalistic rag makes Faux Spews and the National Enquirer look like the rosetta stone. I can’t believe you have the “audacity to hope” that anyone would take something from WND seriously in the first place.

>>Liberals use liberalism as a weapon
>>on the weak.

Gee. I though I’d been pretty easy on you, considering the silly prattle you keep coming up with.