I personally don't care what two homosexual men or two consenting lesbians do in their own time. Their relationship is their own business. And I feel that the issue is deliberately being brought up to try and energize conservative voters. Nevertheless the issue is valid. The issue has more to do with rule of law and activism than anything else. Here in California, we had a Proposition 22 which banned gay marriage. All it took was one judge to thwart the will of the people. BTW, California is a liberal state, and the people voted overwhelmingly for Prop 22.

This issue also deals with activists trying to redefine institutions and cultural norms to their likings rather than respecting what the institution is. And just what is the institution of marriage:

From Merriam Webster:

Marriage Noun: 1. The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife. 2. The mutual relationship as husband and wife. :wedlock 3. The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependance for the purposes of founding and maintaining a family.

Sounds pretty clear to me. I don't know why Homosexual couples just won't push for civil unions and leave the institution of marriage alone. That way they get the same benefits of marriage without destroying the institution. I don't think many would be opposed to that. I certainly wouldn't. But with definitions like the one above.....it's impossible for homosexual couples to be legally married. And definitions like the one above go hand in hand with law.

You know, words such as "bigot", "racist", "xenophobe", "homophobe" get thrown around all too often by those that fear the debate. This is the reason that these words just don't have the impact they used to have. These terms have been overly abused. People have used these terms to death as tools to shut down honest debate. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work the way it used to. There are real bigots, racists and such out there. But most of the time I find these words used in a bogus way.

Like when they apply to you? Gotcha.

Actually, I was defending Skybird. :D And anyone else that just wishes to debate important issues without unfairly being called derogatory names. Which most likely doesn't apply to them.

Bigot is not an infantile name. Sorry there Chief. It's very serious.

And I don't think it's unfair. You feel the need to make distictions from people you see as different or "not normal" that's great for you. But it's unfair to people who aren't like you.

Allowing gays to marry has no negative effect on you or anyone else in the world. It's bigotry to try and prevent it.
Like making blacks drink from a different water fountain. Or forcing a Jew to wear an insignia letting everyone know they are a Jew, and should be looked at and treated differently.

Using these terms to shutdown debate is infantile. It is a legitimate concern for many that allowing gay marriage may lead to the destruction of an institution which forms and keeps society. Where's your tolerance for other points of view? If you have to resort to ridiculous name-calling, I don't have to look very far.

Dude I'm sorry you think me saying these attitudes are bigoted is some sort of flame job. By no means do I think that should prevent you from discussing how you feel. My last post compared these attitudes to other, acknowledged forms of bigotry. That was an attempt at debate. You chose to ignore this point and continue to claim that if I think someone is guilty of bigotry then I am childish and ridiculous.

Again, I am sorry, I do not accept this.


Right. Even though about 2/3rds of all marriages end in divorce. Where is your outrage when Britney Spears gets married on a whim and has it annulled less than a week later.

I hardly think it's a sacred institution.

I am definitely outraged at the fact that these people don't take their marriage vows seriously. Or at the first hint of trouble, it's off to divorce court. Especially with kids involved. There is too much selfishness in our society simply speaking. And it is from this "anything goes" attitude that is prevalent with the activists trying to redefine society. It's not only an "anything goes" attitude, but it also stems from "if it feels good...do it" type of mentality. The very same people trying to redefine society, attack morality and family structure first. Ain't that something???

And sorry, you alluded that another forum member was being bigoted for expressing a point of view. A point of view different from yours, but I saw nothing bigoted from it. Is it bigotry to think that a young child needs a father and mother as both provide different yet necessary functions for a developing child? Is it bigoted to point out studies which show children develop better with the traditional setup? Is it bigoted to quote a marriage definition from a source such as Merriam Webster?

You need to go look up the word bigot, because nobody here has displayed anything like it. Just honest opinion.

I know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds!


In this context, yes. Very much so. Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another. It's looking for a reason to justify bigotry.
My best friend is married, yet her and her husband have no intention of having children.
If you feel this way, should my friend have been allowed to be married knowing they weren't going to have children? Yes or no. Don't dodge this, give a yes or no answer. Answering YES dismisses your point completely.

Link?

It was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is only stating what the unjust law says.

I thought it was your government that was attempting to "redefine society" by proposing to amend the constitution?

Are you seriously implying that gays are responsible for womens sufferage and freeing the slaves? :roll:

Answering yes would not dismiss his point. Married men and women (sad that i have to specifiy their genders), even if they have no current plans to have children, have the potential to have them in the future, either by intent or mistake, so you're wrong. Marriage and having children are indeed linked.

No, it only states the historical meaning of the term. Marriage has ALWAYS meant a permanent union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. The law being discussed is an attempt to keep that definition from being changed against the wishes of a great majority of the population.

Again, nobody is saying that gays shouldn't form permanent partnerships, nor are they saying that these partnerships can't be recognized via the newly defined and codified institution of "Civil Unions". But there is no need to change the definition of a term that has been with us since our species first started forming community groups.

This thread is gay :doh:

At least then you are following the BBC way of defining the word gay in these modern times. ;)

Seems to me the solution is fairly straight-foward:

1. Amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

2. Strike the word "marriage" out of all current laws and governmental forms. Replace it with "Civil Union".

3. Get "married" at your local church. Wear a ring if you'd like. Get your kids Baptized if that suits you.

4. Apply for a "Civil Union" at your local judiciary branch office. Know that your Civil Union means that you are now legally responsible for whatever children you have with your Civil Union Partner.

5. Have gay sex in the confines of your own castle, not the local coffee shop's bathroom glory-hole.

6. Profit!

Another example of Umfeld zigzagging around in the search for the "sense". You sense of logic and having a clear line of argument already was broken in the pedophile threat. And in the alcohol-car-accident-thread. But with this one you have delivered your masterpiece in decosntructing clear thought.Simple truth is: you will shout names at everyone who is not accepting your babbled nonsens as ultimate truth. Third time you do it now to me. So who is it using the internet as an anonymous protection!?And now hush-hush back into the garden, play with the other kids. ;)

Cmon now. Can't we all just get along?