Gay Veteran talks to Mitt Romney - ABC News

[wehateporn]

'Gay Veteran questions Mitt Romney's stance on Marriage Equality'

[_Richard_]

disengage! disengage!

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

disengage! disengage!

[crash_jackson]

Hah! he so did not want to be sitting there when that question was asked

[TheSenator]

At least Romney is staying to the script.

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Governor good luck...you're going to need it.

[Danny B]

Originally Posted by pornopete

I'm all for gay marriage. I believe everybody has the right to be miserable.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by crash_jackson

Hah! he so did not want to be sitting there when that question was asked

Yeah, he was sure exiting that stage in a hurry... lol

[bronco67]

Mitt Romney believes in faeries, but not the kind this guy was asking about.

If we put this backwards ass cavemen in the White House, then we really deserve what we get.

[Mr Pheer]

I feel that Romney is simply being stupid by taking a stance against gay marriage. He wants to be a leader, but is not open minded enough to adapt to changing times, and there are too many gay marriage supporters to turn your back on when you're running for President.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

I feel that Romney is simply being stupid by taking a stance against gay marriage. He wants to be a leader, but is not open minded enough to adapt to changing times, and there are too many gay marriage supporters to turn your back on when you're running for President.

The thing is, everyone who is against gay marriage right now, will find years later that they'll be on the wrong side of history.

In about 10 years(maybe sooner), gay marriage won't be a big issue.

[topsiteking]

Very cool.
Guy has guts.

[jigg]

they're the same age... can't help but notice the stark difference and how Romney looks 10yrs younger than the veteran

[Evil Chris]

that's a hell of a clip

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by bronco67

The thing is, everyone who is against gay marriage right now, will find years later that they'll be on the wrong side of history.

In about 10 years(maybe sooner), gay marriage won't be a big issue.

I've never understood the concept of this being the wrong side of history. I don't think you will ever convince the majority of citizens, whom also happen to be straight (what are the actual numbers of homosexuals in society? 1%? 3%? Maybe???), that homosexuality "has to be" acceptable.

From a natural stance, there's nothing natural about homosexuality. From a sexual stance, yes I understand it. Hell, I'm in porn. I'm a huge fan of women together and I understand people that want to see men together. But, from a natural stance, homosexuality cannot reproduce offspring and therefore is unnatural.

Gays cannot have children. Were it not for socialistic options such as adoption, homosexual couples would not have families and would cease to exist as units exactly when the two parties involved died. It's just simple logic and math. Heterosexual couples reproduce for a myriad of reasons and it's something homosexual couples cannot accomplish without assistance from a 3rd party.

Now, do I accept someone loving whomever they desire? Absolutely. Do I believe there are persons that are born Gay? Absolutely. Do I think you will convince mainstream America that homosexuality is equal to and on par with Man/Woman relationships? Nope... Ain't never gonna happen.

Also, I have no idea why the government is in the marriage business anyway. It makes no sense. From a purely tax revenue standpoint, a marriage is no different than a partnership. The government doesn't care when you are married, they only care about what happens if you break up.

I don't think the gov't should recognize marriages. I think they should recognize that two people have joined in a partnership. If that happens to mean that the two people are both gay then so be it. Allow equality of those arrangements.

Marriage is something that's religious in nature. Leave marriage up to the religions. If someone can find a religion to marry them as homosexuals, then have at it.

Just my

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Marriage is something that's religious in nature. Leave marriage up to the religions. If someone can find a religion to marry them as homosexuals, then have at it.

Anyone can find a religion to marry them. The problem is our LAWS recognize 'some marriages' as legal and others as 'non legal.' A legal marriage means your spouse is protected from testifying against you by marital privilege, can get access to your family health coverage, has rights if you die without a will, can visit you in the hospital if you are in an accident... a non-legal marriage doesn't give a person any of those same rights.

Before you suggest we make a 'civil union' law that gives the same rights but is not a marriage... keep in mind we already tried 'separate but equal' with black people and it failed miserably back in the 1960s.

If you want to take away all legal rights given to married people under our Laws, great. If you want to give the SAME legal rights to anyone married to anyone else under our laws, great. What you can not do is give some married people legal rights and not give other married people the same legal rights. That much should be very clear to anyone born after the 1700s

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

I've never understood the concept of this being the wrong side of history. I don't think you will ever convince the majority of citizens, whom also happen to be straight (what are the actual numbers of homosexuals in society? 1%? 3%? Maybe???), that homosexuality "has to be" acceptable.

From a natural stance, there's nothing natural about homosexuality. From a sexual stance, yes I understand it. Hell, I'm in porn. I'm a huge fan of women together and I understand people that want to see men together. But, from a natural stance, homosexuality cannot reproduce offspring and therefore is unnatural.

Gays cannot have children. Were it not for socialistic options such as adoption, homosexual couples would not have families and would cease to exist as units exactly when the two parties involved died. It's just simple logic and math. Heterosexual couples reproduce for a myriad of reasons and it's something homosexual couples cannot accomplish without assistance from a 3rd party.

Now, do I accept someone loving whomever they desire? Absolutely. Do I believe there are persons that are born Gay? Absolutely. Do I think you will convince mainstream America that homosexuality is equal to and on par with Man/Woman relationships? Nope... Ain't never gonna happen.

Also, I have no idea why the government is in the marriage business anyway. It makes no sense. From a purely tax revenue standpoint, a marriage is no different than a partnership. The government doesn't care when you are married, they only care about what happens if you break up.

I don't think the gov't should recognize marriages. I think they should recognize that two people have joined in a partnership. If that happens to mean that the two people are both gay then so be it. Allow equality of those arrangements.

Marriage is something that's religious in nature. Leave marriage up to the religions. If someone can find a religion to marry them as homosexuals, then have at it.

Just my

well if you want to be like that all sex and all sex acts except penis in vagina for the purpose of reproduction is unnatural.

[Farang]

Originally Posted by pornopete

I'm all for gay marriage. I believe everybody has the right to be miserable.

Hehe

[Tom_PM]

Dinosaurs never know when they're going extinct. Then one day they are.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by Relentless

Anyone can find a religion to marry them. The problem is our LAWS recognize 'some marriages' as legal and others as 'non legal.' A legal marriage means your spouse is protected from testifying against you by marital privilege, can get access to your family health coverage, has rights if you die without a will, can visit you in the hospital if you are in an accident... a non-legal marriage doesn't give a person any of those same rights.

Before you suggest we make a 'civil union' law that gives the same rights but is not a marriage... keep in mind we already tried 'separate but equal' with black people and it failed miserably back in the 1960s.

If you want to take away all legal rights given to married people under our Laws, great. If you want to give the SAME legal rights to anyone married to anyone else under our laws, great. What you can not do is give some married people legal rights and not give other married people the same legal rights. That much should be very clear to anyone born after the 1700s

I'm not suggesting 'civil unions'. I'm suggesting the government gets out of the marriage business and calls it what they really see it as. Partnerships. That's it.

BTW, skin color and sexual preference are two completely different things. I can choose to be homosexual if I desire (don't go all flame on me, I already admitted I know plenty of "born gay" people. I also know plenty of ones that chose to be that way as well. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a "born gay" person could lead a life as a heterosexual, just as it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I could lead a gay lifestyle if I chose to). I however cannot choose to be a black man. It's just not possible. The argument has to be seen differently due to that fact alone. A black man being discriminated for skin color is a terrible thing. Being told you cannot marry someone due to sexual preference and receive benefits??? As I said before, I agree that they should be able to get the same treatment having it seen as a partnership. The definition of "marriage" at that point becomes immaterial. Two people joined together in a partnership in order to achieve specific goals that they could not achieve singularly. That's an equal definition of a partnership and a marriage. Why not just get away from the hot topic and make everyone happy? Give marriage back to the people in the marriage business.

Arguing equality???? Hah.. fix my tax rates and then lets talk about equality for everyone. When I stop getting fucked up the ass because I make decent money and someone else doesn't I'll be happy to help them convince other people that "marriage" should be an equal right for everyone. "Progressive tax" rates are just legalized theft, nothing more. If you want equality, try full equality, not just selective.

As I said, marriage isn't a game the gov't should be playing. It's a political hot topic so it helps people get elected or not. Stop the shell game is what I suggest. Get out of the game and just deal with the contractual side of things. Make that equal.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

well if you want to be like that all sex and all sex acts except penis in vagina for the purpose of reproduction is unnatural.

From that standpoint, yes, you are absolutely correct. You won't convince the majority of Americans otherwise.

[PornoMonster]

Religion has no place in politics!

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

well if you want to be like that all sex and all sex acts except penis in vagina for the purpose of reproduction is unnatural.

And the bible belt believes that, which is STUPID. BRB going to go eat some Pussy!

(yes, I know not everyone in the bible belt)

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

well if you want to be like that all sex and all sex acts except penis in vagina for the purpose of reproduction is unnatural.

Except when a male/female couple is unable to reproduce. They're 'unnatural' too of course.

[Tom_PM]

No, you cannot choose to be homosexual. That's the dinosaur part. All the dwindling arguments hinge on it, and it's a rapidly shrinking number of people who simply won't or can't bring themselves to accept it.

You might be able to choose to fuck a guy in the ass, but that doesn't mean you're now a homosexual. You could also wear extra good makeup and look as african as the next guy. Doesn't make you black.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

You might be able to choose to fuck a guy in the ass, but that doesn't mean you're now a homosexual.

No, it means you probably always were.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

No, you cannot choose to be homosexual. That's the dinosaur part. All the dwindling arguments hinge on it, and it's a rapidly shrinking number of people who simply won't or can't bring themselves to accept it.

You might be able to choose to fuck a guy in the ass, but that doesn't mean you're now a homosexual. You could also wear extra good makeup and look as african as the next guy. Doesn't make you black.

Difference of opinion. I believe that yes you can choose that.

A rapidly shrinking number of people???? In what world? You think the large majority of Americans are fully accepting of homosexuality as a lifestyle? I would beg to differ on that.

I in fact know personally of four people that are in homosexual relationships that previously were in heterosexual relationships (not a great sampling I know, but it's personal to me and therefore relevant to me). They consider themselves to be homosexual at this time. They made a choice, they clearly did. Look at Anne Heche, she made the choice on both sides. Was she a straight woman just playing gay with Ellen DeGeneres? Is she now really a gay woman just playing heterosexual with her husband and kids?

Does this mean all gay people have done it by choice? Of course not. However, again, you cannot choose to be black. You either are or are not. Those classes and arguments for racism vs lifestyle inequality are completely different.

[Evil Chris]

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

Pierre Trudeau, 1967

[shinmusashi44]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

I've never understood the concept of this being the wrong side of history. I don't think you will ever convince the majority of citizens, whom also happen to be straight (what are the actual numbers of homosexuals in society? 1%? 3%? Maybe???), that homosexuality "has to be" acceptable.

And people said the same things about interracial marriages in the 1960s.

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

From a natural stance, there's nothing natural about homosexuality. From a sexual stance, yes I understand it. Hell, I'm in porn. I'm a huge fan of women together and I understand people that want to see men together. But, from a natural stance, homosexuality cannot reproduce offspring and therefore is unnatural.

If it happens in nature then its natural. Also what does reproducing have to do with sex. People have sex for fun,love,entertainment and sometimes to have children. But for the most part its cause it feels good. I know when I'm getting a blowjob, I'm not thinking about having children with the girl. sex and reproducing are 2 different things for humans.

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Gays cannot have children. Were it not for socialistic options such as adoption, homosexual couples would not have families and would cease to exist as units exactly when the two parties involved died. It's just simple logic and math. Heterosexual couples reproduce for a myriad of reasons and it's something homosexual couples cannot accomplish without assistance from a 3rd party.

Now, do I accept someone loving whomever they desire? Absolutely. Do I believe there are persons that are born Gay? Absolutely. Do I think you will convince mainstream America that homosexuality is equal to and on par with Man/Woman relationships? Nope... Ain't never gonna happen.

Once again people said the same thing in the 60s about interracial marriages. And yes some people still aren't convinced its right. Lots of people thought it was unnatural and it was outlawed.

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Also, I have no idea why the government is in the marriage business anyway. It makes no sense. From a purely tax revenue standpoint, a marriage is no different than a partnership. The government doesn't care when you are married, they only care about what happens if you break up.

I don't think the gov't should recognize marriages. I think they should recognize that two people have joined in a partnership. If that happens to mean that the two people are both gay then so be it. Allow equality of those arrangements.

Marriage is something that's religious in nature. Leave marriage up to the religions. If someone can find a religion to marry them as homosexuals, then have at it.

Just my

The government is in the marriage business cause all the benefits you get from being married is from the government. Name me one benefit you get from the church/religion for being married? Also who do you go to for a divorce, that's right the government.

Personally the government and religion should have a hand in marriage. I'm atheist and will never get married in a church on moral grounds, so I will go to the courthouse to do that. If people follow a religion then they can go to their church if they want.

Marriage has always been about gaining wealth and power, religion was only thrown on top so they could control it.

[Tom_PM]

I hate reading every multi quoted message ever created so I'll only do it once.

Difference of opinion. I believe that yes you can choose that.

A rapidly shrinking number of people???? In what world? You think the large majority of Americans are fully accepting of homosexuality as a lifestyle? I would beg to differ on that.

No. You're trying to say I subscribe to your premise that gay is a lifestyle choice first of all, which I dont. And second, I said that a rapidly shrinking number of people believe that homosexuality is a choice. That is to say, they also are coming to realise the very premise is faulty and everything crumbles without it.

I in fact know personally of four people that are in homosexual relationships that previously were in heterosexual relationships (not a great sampling I know, but it's personal to me and therefore relevant to me). They consider themselves to be homosexual at this time. They made a choice, they clearly did. Look at Anne Heche, she made the choice on both sides. Was she a straight woman just playing gay with Ellen DeGeneres? Is she now really a gay woman just playing heterosexual with her husband and kids?

They realised they were homosexuals. Very common. And in the case of Anne Heche, she was a straight woman who thought she was gay, but realised she was wrong. You laid it out basically right but missed the obvious conclusion.

Does this mean all gay people have done it by choice? Of course not. However, again, you cannot choose to be black. You either are or are not. Those classes and arguments for racism vs lifestyle inequality are completely different.

The premise that you rely on, that gay is a lifestyle choice, is what your (I say "your" meaning the overall argument) argument is hinged on, or depends on.. Like I said before, it's simply incorrect and it's a shrinking position as more people become aware of it.

The reason racism is a valid analogy is exactly because one can't change their true sexuality any more than a person can change their skin color. Just choose not to be black sort of fails right? It's the same thing and it's not a matter of belief, it's just a matter of accepting facts at the end of the day.

If I jam my hand in fire, yes I'm choosing to remove my hand because "something just wasn't right about that on second thought".

Anyway yeah, I'm fine having a different opinion. The handwriting has been on the wall for decades on this one though. But of course alot of people don't vote on math or science. It's pretty weak of lawmakers to say "traditional definition of marriage" though. How about the "traditional definition of property" when it came to abolishing slavery, or the "traditional definition of voting" when it came to allowing women to vote.. this one is really so easy to see coming. Just saying.

[hostcentrex]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

'Gay Veteran questions Mitt Romney's stance on Marriage Equality'

I think this is the first time I have really heard this out of the horses mouth. He may be the right choice fiscally for our country, however personal liberties are more important. The United States was founded on the idea that ALL Men are created equal, thus equality is at the root of our collective morals. The fact that committed members of our population do not share the same rights as the rest is what is holding back our progression.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

Pierre Trudeau, 1967

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by shinmusashi44

And people said the same things about interracial marriages in the 1960s.

sounds similar, but just isn't. man/woman vs man/man just isn't comparible. It's a dog, cat thing. Yes they are both animals, but that's where the similarity ends. You won't convince American's that loving another guy is the same as loving a girl. Just won't happen, irregardless of a minority opinion. One's a skin color, the other can be optional.

If it happens in nature then its natural. Also what does reproducing have to do with sex. People have sex for fun,love,entertainment and sometimes to have children. But for the most part its cause it feels good. I know when I'm getting a blowjob, I'm not thinking about having children with the girl. sex and reproducing are 2 different things for humans.

Cancer happens in nature, so that makes it natural right? Sure, sounds good. Until you get to the point that cancer destroys that which is natural rather than supports it.

Sex is for fun and entertainment. The reason people get aroused by the opposite sex is purely for propagation of the species. That's nature at work right there. In order to make more humans, you get a boner so you want to have sex with the baby carriers. Simple enough. Just because a portion of the species gets boners seeing other boners doesn't mean nature isn't working as intended. It just means that those portions of the species won't be reproducing unless they get the proper 3rd party involved.

Once again people said the same thing in the 60s about interracial marriages. And yes some people still aren't convinced its right. Lots of people thought it was unnatural and it was outlawed.

Race vs sexual orientation. Again, sounds the same, but it isn't. See above.

The government is in the marriage business cause all the benefits you get from being married is from the government. Name me one benefit you get from the church/religion for being married? Also who do you go to for a divorce, that's right the government.

Personally the government and religion should have a hand in marriage. I'm atheist and will never get married in a church on moral grounds, so I will go to the courthouse to do that. If people follow a religion then they can go to their church if they want.

Marriage has always been about gaining wealth and power, religion was only thrown on top so they could control it.

You get partnership benefits from marriage as far as the state is concerned. That's it. You can and do get divorced religiously, although if you are Catholic I think they frown on it highly. But divorce in the State's eyes is a dissolution of a partnership, just called "divorce".

Government has no business in "marriage", only in contractual agreements. A partnership is a contract with another entity/person. That's exactly what a marriage is. Nothing more. I fully endorse governments allowing domestic partnerships to be equalized with whomever the other person desires. My wife and I in a domestic partnership vs 2 men or 2 women enjoying the same seems perfectly reasonable to me. Convincing churches to bless "marriages" between same sexes??? sure, you will find some that will do it. Asking government to do the same and asking society to equalize those two thoughts (religious marriage vs. state endorsed marriage?) Won't happen. Change the word and it will be more likely to be acceptable. You won't get straight couples en masse to agree that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage. However, ask them to agree to partnership equality, and I bet that has a better chance of occurring.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

I've never understood the concept of this being the wrong side of history. I don't think you will ever convince the majority of citizens, whom also happen to be straight (what are the actual numbers of homosexuals in society? 1%? 3%? Maybe???), that homosexuality "has to be" acceptable.

From a natural stance, there's nothing natural about homosexuality. From a sexual stance, yes I understand it. Hell, I'm in porn. I'm a huge fan of women together and I understand people that want to see men together. But, from a natural stance, homosexuality cannot reproduce offspring and therefore is unnatural.

Gays cannot have children. Were it not for socialistic options such as adoption, homosexual couples would not have families and would cease to exist as units exactly when the two parties involved died. It's just simple logic and math. Heterosexual couples reproduce for a myriad of reasons and it's something homosexual couples cannot accomplish without assistance from a 3rd party.

Now, do I accept someone loving whomever they desire? Absolutely. Do I believe there are persons that are born Gay? Absolutely. Do I think you will convince mainstream America that homosexuality is equal to and on par with Man/Woman relationships? Nope... Ain't never gonna happen.

Also, I have no idea why the government is in the marriage business anyway. It makes no sense. From a purely tax revenue standpoint, a marriage is no different than a partnership. The government doesn't care when you are married, they only care about what happens if you break up.

I don't think the gov't should recognize marriages. I think they should recognize that two people have joined in a partnership. If that happens to mean that the two people are both gay then so be it. Allow equality of those arrangements.

Marriage is something that's religious in nature. Leave marriage up to the religions. If someone can find a religion to marry them as homosexuals, then have at it.

Just my

your involves religious discrimination.

so it's worthless

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

I hate reading every multi quoted message ever created so I'll only do it once.


No. You're trying to say I subscribe to your premise that gay is a lifestyle choice first of all, which I dont. And second, I said that a rapidly shrinking number of people believe that homosexuality is a choice. That is to say, they also are coming to realise the very premise is faulty and everything crumbles without it.

They realised they were homosexuals. Very common. And in the case of Anne Heche, she was a straight woman who thought she was gay, but realised she was wrong. You laid it out basically right but missed the obvious conclusion.


The premise that you rely on, that gay is a lifestyle choice, is what your (I say "your" meaning the overall argument) argument is hinged on, or depends on.. Like I said before, it's simply incorrect and it's a shrinking position as more people become aware of it.

The reason racism is a valid analogy is exactly because one can't change their true sexuality any more than a person can change their skin color. Just choose not to be black sort of fails right? It's the same thing and it's not a matter of belief, it's just a matter of accepting facts at the end of the day.

If I jam my hand in fire, yes I'm choosing to remove my hand because "something just wasn't right about that on second thought".

Anyway yeah, I'm fine having a different opinion. The handwriting has been on the wall for decades on this one though. But of course alot of people don't vote on math or science. It's pretty weak of lawmakers to say "traditional definition of marriage" though. How about the "traditional definition of property" when it came to abolishing slavery, or the "traditional definition of voting" when it came to allowing women to vote.. this one is really so easy to see coming. Just saying.

I'm honored you chose to multiquote my message, and in return I shall not multiquote again.

1-I don't suppose you to subscribe to anything. I just disagree with you. I don't believe gay is a lifestyle choice first and foremost. I believe that it is for some and is not for some. Wait, I'll reverse that order for you. I believe that it is not a choice for some, yet it is a choice for others.

I don't agree that the number of people believing homosexuality is a rapidly shrinking number. I guess it depends on your thoughts of how big the number is and how fast it may be changing. Perhaps the number of people believing that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice is a rapidly growing number? If you have 1million people that agreed with that before and now 1.5 million think that, then that's a 50% growth rate, whereas 1/2 million changing from the other side of the equation would be a 1/10% decline. Guess it just depends on how you look at it.

2- They realized they were homosexuals when before they were not? Possible, or perhaps they chose option 2 instead of option 1. Either way is certainly plausible. Anne Heche was straight, thought she was gay, and realized she was wrong. Or perhaps she was straight, then felt gay and now feels straight again. Maybe she will feel gay again at one point. it's convenient to pass her (and others) off as pretenders and assume that all gays are actually the only true gays. I know, it's convenient for me to do so on the other side.

3- I don't rely on gay being a lifestyle choice. I'm saying it's part of the equation, not the entire answer. It's not incorrect and can't be if it's part of the equation. The idea that it's shrinking is agreeable, just not sure I'd agree with the perception of how fast it's occurring.

4- Sure you can change sexuality and people are doing it. I'm straight, but if I decide to go on a bender for a few years and enjoy penis, I bet I'd identify as gay. I'd probably have a hard time getting a date otherwise. It would be a choice for me to do so and perhaps I'd become infatuated and perhaps fall in love with another man if I decided to do so. Would this make me less gay than those that have never felt feelings for a woman ever in their entire lives? Tough to make that judgement call in my opinion.

Your supposition is that gayness is 100% born, just like skin color. I disagree. No big deal, I just disagree. I'd say yes for some, no for others. If you are looking at facts, then you have to accept that there are those in the gay community that have chosen to be there. Unless of course you write off all of those as pretenders, or they were confused in their heterosexual existence prior to, then your argument succeeds.

5- Traditional is what it is. Kind of like saying Majority. Can it change. Sure it can. Will it? Who knows. You may be right, or it may spark the populace to make different choices about how they wish to be governed. I'd venture to say that the black population fighting for equality was larger in percentage of the populace than the gay population fighting for a different kind of equality. Also, blacks were fighting for what people would identify most likely as remnants of slavery. They wished to be equalized to their white neighbors and not segregated. I believe they already had property and marriage equality at that point. To my knowledge, gays don't have to ride on the backs of busses or drink from separate water fountains or use different changing rooms. They simply want recognition of the word "marriage" to apply to them. I suggest using different terminology to accomplish those goals.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

your involves religious discrimination.

so it's worthless

involves religious discrimination? In what way? Please explain

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by hostcentrex

I think this is the first time I have really heard this out of the horses mouth. He may be the right choice fiscally for our country, however personal liberties are more important. The United States was founded on the idea that ALL Men are created equal, thus equality is at the root of our collective morals. The fact that committed members of our population do not share the same rights as the rest is what is holding back our progression.

try that equality with taxation............. Ok, damn, nevermind equality, just kidding

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by pornopete

You are intitled to your opinion, but in all honesty it's none of your business.

What's none of my business? Gayness? Not sure where you are going with that one.

[Bryan G]

I'll never understand why some people really give a fuck if someone is straight, gay, whatever. Honestly why do you care what others do. Its sad.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by pornopete

Actually you know what. I just read your entire post, and I have to say, I'm not sure where you are going. You start off seeming to be against gay rights, and end up being for them.

Regardless. My point is simple, and basically echos that of Trudeau's. It's nobodies business, especially not gov'ts what two grown people want to do.

Personally I do not agree with gay marriage, but I cannot rightfully oppose it. I have no right to dictate to anybody how they should live their life, and neither does anybody else.

LOL, glad you read the entire thing, thanks. You guess rightly, although I don't think I come off as "against" gay rights (unless you preload your reading to just assume I'm against it.) I'm against classification. I'm tired of everyone being "something", WTF is wrong with just being American? BTW, if I decided to classify myself and then fight for my rights, aren't I just segregating myself? I would like white-male rights please (because goodness knows white males are getting the shaft more and more - sorry kind of a freudian slip in a gay chat, I know.)..... and an order of fries as well?

I'm not opposing gay marriage (although I don't specifically support it), I'm stating that convincing the populace that they should equalize it with heterosexual marriage just ain't gonna happen unless the legislature and courts shove it down their throats. I also don't equate it similarly to racial injustices. I just think its a horse of a different color per se.

This isn't about dictating to others how to live their life and in fact is a dictation in reverse. The gay community wishes to dictate to the heterosexual community that they must equalize something that they disagree with. I just don't see that happening. (I know, bring out the historicals for racial injustice or gender injustice. See previous for my thoughts on how those are not directly comparable in my reasoning)

I suggest changing the tactic and convincing the hetero side to change how the state views joinings of persons. I don't think marriage is something the state should be endorsing, especially since the state only cares about the contractual side of it. Marriage in and of itself is an emotional joining. I'd prefer the state stays out of my emotions and thought processes and keeps itself to tangible interests and concerns.

[Matt 26z]

Marriage is an emotional partnership combined with the legal protection of property.

The only argument against being fully committed to a man, woman or even multiple people is one of bigotry, misunderstanding or a religious belief that you are to help god fight against it.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

involves religious discrimination? In what way? Please explain

are you denying someone a religious right via government control?

i am not sure why i should even explain this

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Cancer happens in nature, so that makes it natural right?

Let's roll with the belief that homosexuality is a naturally occurring flaw of nature just like any other mental or physical birth defect.

Now what?

These people and their sexual disorder are there and society can't change that. There is no cure and it isn't the type of disorder you can lock someone up for having.

Their same sex attraction feels as natural to them as yours does to women. Purely from a standpoint of doing the right thing, why would you want to deny them the same rights as straight couples?

What you are saying is "Oh, sorry, you were born with a defect. So you can't pursue certain types of happiness with someone who is like you because I think it's too gross."

Does the same argument apply to couples with downs syndrome or dwarfism? Each is a defect of nature. Since couples with downs can't function in society the same way straight people do, should they not be allowed to marry? And since dwarfs are highly likely to have a dwarf child in their family, should they be denied marriage also?

You need to take a few steps back and reevaluate your views on human existence.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Let's roll with the belief that homosexuality is a naturally occurring flaw of nature just like any other mental or physical birth defect.

Now what?

These people and their sexual disorder are there and society can't change that. There is no cure and it isn't the type of disorder you can lock someone up for having.

Their same sex attraction feels as natural to them as yours does to women. Purely from a standpoint of doing the right thing, why would you want to deny them the same rights as straight couples?

What you are saying is "Oh, sorry, you were born with a defect. So you can't pursue certain types of happiness with someone who is like you because I think it's too gross."

Does the same argument apply to couples with downs syndrome or dwarfism? Each is a defect of nature. Since couples with downs can't function in society the same way straight people do, should they not be allowed to marry? And since dwarfs are highly likely to have a dwarf child in their family, should they be denied marriage also?

You need to take a few steps back and reevaluate your views on human existence.

seriously. Frankly i could find it religiously highly distasteful the divorce rate in the US. Should we, as a planet, ban everyone in the US from marriage on the basis that 'something is obviously wrong with them'? Would we have a right?

[Relentless]

Kevin,

Things will get very exciting when people decide discriminating against others is an 'unnatural flaw' and start curtailing the rights of people who do it.
The number of gay people plus the number of straight people empathetic to gay people far exceeds the number of haters.
When critical mass is reached, being on the wrong side of history will leave many haters out in the cold.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

are you denying someone a religious right via government control?

i am not sure why i should even explain this

Oh, I see where you are going with that now. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one doing any denial of anything. However, sounds like a great argument for someone to bring to court. Gotta convince judges that their religious beliefs allow for homosexual unions and therefore they are being infringed upon. Could work......

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Let's roll with the belief that homosexuality is a naturally occurring flaw of nature just like any other mental or physical birth defect.

Now what?

These people and their sexual disorder are there and society can't change that. There is no cure and it isn't the type of disorder you can lock someone up for having.

Their same sex attraction feels as natural to them as yours does to women. Purely from a standpoint of doing the right thing, why would you want to deny them the same rights as straight couples?

What you are saying is "Oh, sorry, you were born with a defect. So you can't pursue certain types of happiness with someone who is like you because I think it's too gross."

Does the same argument apply to couples with downs syndrome or dwarfism? Each is a defect of nature. Since couples with downs can't function in society the same way straight people do, should they not be allowed to marry? And since dwarfs are highly likely to have a dwarf child in their family, should they be denied marriage also?

You need to take a few steps back and reevaluate your views on human existence.

I love that everyone is reading my comments as though I'm a heartless motherfucker that thinks gays should not have rights. Try reading my posts again if that's the case.

I believe that the state should get out of the marriage game. Partnerships, that's all they care about. Partnerships. Allow partnerships of anyone whom wants to make one. Make the benefits and whatnot equal. If aunt Tessie and Aunt Gilda want to be in a partnership so that they can benefit from the contractual arrangement; have at it. No sexual concerns even involved.

Make the arrangement equal and get the fuck away from a word. Otherwise there will always be exceptions that feel slighted. Get the gayness away from the issue and equalize it across the board.

As far as my views of human existence are concerned, I appreciate your concern for me. I'm just fine.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by Relentless

Kevin,

Things will get very exciting when people decide discriminating against others is an 'unnatural flaw' and start curtailing the rights of people who do it.
The number of gay people plus the number of straight people empathetic to gay people far exceeds the number of haters.
When critical mass is reached, being on the wrong side of history will leave many haters out in the cold.

Let's fix your numbering system there a little bit, because the population you are referring to is also squeaky wheel that is getting the grease.

The number of people that don't give a rats ass right now far outnumber everyone else combined. If they ever did care enough to chime in, they would drown out the fringes on both sides.

People in the middle are far too busy living their lives to worry about the fringes. They think the left and the right are completely off their rockers.

You may be correct in your numbers assumptions (gays+sympathizers>haters), but that's still not a massive portion of the overall population.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Let's fix your numbering system there a little bit, because the population you are referring to is also squeaky wheel that is getting the grease.

The number of people that don't give a rats ass right now far outnumber everyone else combined. If they ever did care enough to chime in, they would drown out the fringes on both sides.

People in the middle are far too busy living their lives to worry about the fringes. They think the left and the right are completely off their rockers.

You may be correct in your numbers assumptions (gays+sympathizers>haters), but that's still not a massive portion of the overall population.

Your argument would make sense if there wasn't one or two states getting gay marriage and other rights every year.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by epitome

Your argument would make sense if there wasn't one or two states getting gay marriage and other rights every year.

I actually applaud this. I'm a huge fan of states rights. However, due to the Constitution, reciprocity of other states is a requirement. Article IV, Sec 1, defines it.

Allowing a marriage that another state doesn't wish to recognize is asking for Supreme Court review (insert concealed carry laws, driver's licensing of foreign nationals, etc).

Just because State A says something is OK, doesn't make it national law.

Everybody has got to say it's OK and no one has to bring it before SCOTUS. Otherwise, it's just pissing into the wind until someone does.

BTW, you know just as well as I do that without some sort of Federal legislation (constitutional amendment anyone?), that not every state in the Union will accept gay marriage. There's the guaranteed liberal states of course, but on the other side, there's those guaranteed conservative states where it never will happen. That's why the federal push. Also, federal legislation is only binding until something overrides it. Care to be married where that contract can then be changed by a new group of legislators? They obviously have no desire to attack man/woman marriage, but you know there's plenty of conservatives that even if gay marriage were to pass, would come into the next conservative ruled congress and make a change. It's what they are most likely to do to the Healthcare Affordability Act (Obamacare) the first chance they get.

Constitutional amendments were made difficult to enact and just as difficult to change. Standard legislation goes the way of popular opinion as soon as the legislators are elected. They want to get reelected. They could give a shit how people felt a few years prior.

[GrantMercury]

Originally Posted by hostcentrex

He may be the right choice fiscally for our country, however personal liberties are more important.

He's not even the right choice fiscally. His policies are no different than GWBs. We all know where that got us.

Obama 2012.