Obama boost for U.S. gay rights fight

[Lt_Ripley]

They should, but why shout it from the rooftops? If it makes the military uncomfortable, keep your ("you" as in generally, not you Ohio State Buckeyes) mouth shut about it.

and by fairness straight people in the military should keep their mouths shut about it.

No wives or kids calling the base. no pictures up. ect. ... right ?

[Lt_Ripley]

It's already legal in the United States for gay couples to get married. What the gay activists want is legislative recognition, which is highly laughable. There are less than 1,000,000 gay couples (or persons. I don't remember) in America. Why the definition of marriage should be fundamentally changed for such a small minority is beyond me.

lmao less than a million gays ? try again. We make up about 10 % of the population. do the math. there are 350 million people in the US.

fyi... blacks make up 13% of the population. should we take their equal rights away ?

[InfraredCow]

It's already legal in the United States for gay couples to get married. What the gay activists want is legislative recognition, which is highly laughable. There are less than 1,000,000 gay couples (or persons. I don't remember) in America. Why the definition of marriage should be fundamentally changed for such a small minority is beyond me.

Yeah, so why are you bunch changing it "fundamentally", for your sake?

One of the most common arguments against marriage equality is that the legalization of gay marriage threatens the institution of traditional marriage. But a recent poll conducted by the Des Moines Register finds that 92% of Iowans believe that "gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives." The study comes just months after the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/poll-92-of-iowans-believe_n_293539.html

[Pseudo Intellectual]

and by fairness straight people in the military should keep their mouths shut about it.

No wives or kids calling the base. no pictures up. ect. ... right ?

Um... no? The overwhelming majority of the military isn't made uncomfortable by that.

Yeah, so why are you bunch changing it "fundamentally", for your sake?

Of course it doesn't affect most people's lives personally. The fact is that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. You can have 2 gay people wearing rings on their middle finger, living together, having the same last name, etc just don't call it marriage. That would be like saying a sci-fi movie/book is real. That simply is not what "real" is.

---

I can see this is turning into a gay marriage thread. I think we should stop and get back on topic.

[questionmark]

You can have 2 gay people wearing rings on their middle finger, living together, having the same last name, etc just don't call it marriage. That would be like saying a sci-fi movie/book is real. That simply is not what "real" is.

Heh, so they can be together in a bed, just don't call it sex?

But wait, that means this whole debate is fruitless....

[InfraredCow]

Um... no? The overwhelming majority of the military isn't made uncomfortable by that.

Of course it doesn't affect most people's lives personally. The fact is that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. You can have 2 gay people wearing rings on their middle finger, living together, having the same last name, etc just don't call it marriage. That would be like saying a sci-fi movie/book is real. That simply is not what "real" is.

Are you insane? What else is different then... between what you stated (living together, and having the same last name) -- besides how we ****? Which -- btw isn't that different in some cases. How many straight couples do you suppose there are that don't go down on each other? How are our relationships not real?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

The only part of your post I could comprehend was the "How are our relationships not real?", so I guess it's the only part I can respond to. Well, InfraredCow, when did I say anything that even suggested your relationships weren't real? I said it couldn't be marriage, because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's the same in every way, but not exactly. It's like two different video games with a rating of 10. They're not the same thing, but they're both video games and they're both just as good.

[Mattshark]

The only part of your post I could comprehend was the "How are our relationships not real?", so I guess it's the only part I can respond to. Well, InfraredCow, when did I say anything that even suggested your relationships weren't real? I said it couldn't be marriage, because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's the same in every way, but not exactly. It's like two different video games with a rating of 10. They're not the same thing, but they're both video games and they're both just as good.

Actually marriage if you really want to be technical and traditional is just a contract signed by sex. You are just quoting a discriminatory view of it, which is very unAmerican of you.

[InfraredCow]

The only part of your post I could comprehend was the "How are our relationships not real?"

What do you mean you counldn't comprehend? That says more about you then me -- my post was clear:

Are you insane? What else is different then... between what you stated (living together, and having the same last name) -- besides how we ****? Which -- btw isn't that different in some cases. How many straight couples do you suppose there are that don't go down on each other? How are our relationships not real?

I asked you how two gay people being married is different if everything you stated was the same between both. Then I was asking you: if it's not anything you suggested -- where we're similar (but not the same) -- if you meant it was the sex between two gay couples that made us not legit. And if that is what it was? If that is what you thought makes our marriage the equivelant of a sci-fi movie or book in regards to what is real and what is not... I then asked you: how many straight couples do you suppose there are that don't go down on each other? 'Cause that is sodomy -- If you were saying that's what didn't make our marriages actual.

That's not hard to comprehend. None of that was.

so I guess it's the only part I can respond to. Well, InfraredCow, when did I say anything that even suggested your relationships weren't real? I said it couldn't be marriage, because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's the same in every way, but not exactly. It's like two different video games with a rating of 10. They're not the same thing, but they're both video games and they're both just as good.

What you're saying is that marriage isn't real between two gay people -- what I'm saying is that marriage is a realtionship that we're entitled to. So, you're also saying that our chance at that relationship isn't "real". Which is ridiculous and insane.

Edited October 12, 2009 by InfraredCow

[Lt_Ripley]

Are you insane? What else is different then... between what you stated (living together, and having the same last name) -- besides how we ****? Which -- btw isn't that different in some cases. How many straight couples do you suppose there are that don't go down on each other? How are our relationships not real?

InfraredCow

What you're saying is that marriage isn't real between two gay people -- what I'm saying is that marriage is a realtionship that we're entitled to. So, you're also saying that our chance at that relationship isn't "real". Which is ridiculous and insane.

don't bother arguing with him.. he's a wanna be know it all that knows squat . I'm tired of having to correct his 'facts'. his nic suits him. he's like a Jethro.

In fact that will be my new pet name for him !! Jethro !!

Edited October 12, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[InfraredCow]

don't bother arguing with him.. he's a wanna be know it all that knows squat . I'm tired of having to correct his 'facts'. his nic suits him. he's like a Jethro.

In fact that will be my new pet name for him !! Jethro !!

Man, do I believe it!

Then that is that.

Edited October 12, 2009 by InfraredCow

[Pseudo Intellectual]

*Sigh*

What part of my post did you not understand? I said nothing about relationships. I'm talking about marriage. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It always has been.

Now, answer me this question: What do you think is a marriage?

[Mattshark]

*Sigh*

What part of my post did you not understand? I said nothing about relationships. I'm talking about marriage. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It always has been.

Now, answer me this question: What do you think is a marriage?

No it isn't that is where you are wrong and you are to ignorant to understand.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Heh. Whatever you say, bubba.

[el midgetron]

You can have 2 gay people wearing rings on their middle finger, living together, having the same last name, etc just don't call it marriage.

Does wearing a ring on the middle finger have some kind of homosexual context to it? Or did you just mean their ring finger?

look, they are flipping you off

[Bill Hill]

What about lady GaGa's inspirational speech?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Does wearing a ring on the middle finger have some kind of homosexual context to it? Or did you just mean their ring finger?

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant.

[Lt_Ripley]

*Sigh*

What part of my post did you not understand? I said nothing about relationships. I'm talking about marriage. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It always has been.

Now, answer me this question: What do you think is a marriage?

so Jethro ... the answer is easy ... change the definition !! lot's of words change definition or get added too ! you get used to it !

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I'm simply saying that marriage is, and always has been, by definition, between a man and a woman.

I don't support "changing the definition" for marriage, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't care much about it. Even though if you officially legalize gay marriage, you'll eventually have to legalize incest marriage, polygamy, etc (slippery slope and all) because if two (or more) people love each other, who are we to deny them the "right" to get married?

[questionmark]

I'm simply saying that marriage is, and always has been, by definition, between a man and a woman.

I don't support "changing the definition" for marriage, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't care much about it. Even though if you officially legalize gay marriage, you'll eventually have to legalize incest marriage, polygamy, etc (slippery slope and all) because if two (or more) people love each other, who are we to deny them the "right" to get married?

Sorry, but in most societies, until very recently, it was not about men or women (especially not about women) but about family.

[el midgetron]

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant.

I assumed you meant their ring finger but thought maybe wearing rings on the middle figure was sort of like wearing an ear-ring in the right ear.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Sorry, but in most societies, until very recently, it was not about men or women (especially not about women) but about family.

Yes, marriages usually lead to families, but I'm talking about marriage itself, not what comes with it.

[__Kratos__]

I'm simply saying that marriage is, and always has been, by definition, between a man and a woman.

I don't support "changing the definition" for marriage, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't care much about it. Even though if you officially legalize gay marriage, you'll eventually have to legalize incest marriage, polygamy, etc (slippery slope and all) because if two (or more) people love each other, who are we to deny them the "right" to get married?

Well that's a big fat lie. Marriage has many definitions, not just what you belief is right.

Changing the definition is not your choice, nor is your view backed up by history. Nor is your defining of marriage bound by a single religion or belief towards other people.

LMAO!!! It's hilarious to think you're fine with atheists getting married as long as they're man and woman but if a loving gay couple wants to get married it's omg no!!!!!!!

All those things are fine with consenting adults. You need to wake up and see the world isn't defined by what your sexuality is and it's pretty ignorant to think that everybody else should act and feel as you do just because you're insecure.

[Paranormalcy]

First, Modhat: Please do not use derogatory terms or implications for other posters, including giving them nicknames obviously intended to be a slight - this is against policy and I'm pretty sure you people know that.

I was under the impression that in the US for example, it had to be legislated (which is "legal" discrimination by the way) that marriage was defined as between a man and a women - which means there WAS no pre-existing definition of marriage being only heterosexual - maybe there was a reason for that before offended, prejudiced busybodies decided they were scared they would get "the gay" or it would come into their homes and play naked twister in their living room, and voted to change it.

There isn't any more reason to support the "separate but equal" doctrine now, than there was for another historical minority group that were born with certain characteristics beyond their control...not that choice also should be excluded. In the country where I come from, the US, there is a rule against discriminating against any race, creed, color, sex, etc. and for some reason, I just can't see there being an "except this group" in there anywhere - yet there is, anyway, hypocritically.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Paranormalcy

[questionmark]

Yes, marriages usually lead to families, but I'm talking about marriage itself, not what comes with it.

See, you are trying to tell us your modern perspective and with that norm tell us something about how it always was.

Marrying, during most of history, did not mean that a family was created. For a woman it meant in first line that she left her family of birth to join her "married family". Later it meant that by intermarriage families expanded creating ties and the bigger it got clans.

During most of that time people were not really married until there was offspring. Up to that point the man could just get up and walk away... or send the woman back to her parents. Later that got watered down a little by agreeing that a marriage was valid after having sex...but that only in the Christian part of the world.

So marriage is not about men and women, it is about family. Even using our modern terminology, where family is man, woman and children. So, if we want to have a rule for all, and we want to be fair we would have to conclude that only those who actually have children can benefit from "being married".

Would be fair to all.