are you denying someone a religious right via government control?

i am not sure why i should even explain this

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?

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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

Obama 2012.

http://www.bartcop.com/10-year-jobs-where_n.jpg

It's so obvious that Mitt thinks he can play this guy cuz the guy is a veteran and Mitt is a Rethug. I know several vets who not only loathe Mitt, but think very little of Republicans in general.

Democrats help veterans. Republicans create them. - And this guy talking to Mitt knows it.

so you think preaching about how wrong this group is, isn't a form of denial?

what does it feel like, using a religion based on peace and support of your fellow man, to discriminate and alienate your fellow citizens?

Just to be clear I am voting for Obama as well, still I believe that you need to look at both sides of every coin.

Mitt's policies would have a lot of effect on the middle class, hopefully bring about the growth. But then again so does Obama's. The President inherited a country in less than the perfect state of unity to say the least. The previous administration, all but distorted the middle class and small business owner who employ the most Americans, in addition to completely turning civil liberties on it's head.

President Obama's camp however has really done a terrible job of controlling the news cycle, and have not really gotten the message out to the general population as to the effects of their policies on the country's economy, which is the strongest it's been in 10 years.

Mitt's plan most likely is the fast track to recovery, however it's only building on the foundation that President Obama has spent so much time on. And at what cost, the regression of the liberal ideals to which this country was founded on? I just do think it's worth cheaper gas prices, and 99 cent beer. (Despite the fact that I LOVE both.)

A lot of the lower middle class is really willing to take a blow to their freedom, if it means they can keep a few more pennies in their wallets. It is the constitutional responsibility of the educated to watch and protect those that don't really know what is being taken from them. And at the end of the day, everyone has to know that freedom is not free. And that having freedom has a value, and it's worth more than a tax cost I'm not going to see for 10 years.

I haven't said the group is wrong. Not sure where you made that connection. I've said getting the majority of Americans to agree just won't happen.

I'm not using religion for anything; you must be reading something into it somehow.

Did I read the whole thing right? This in particular? Do you think this country was founded on liberal ideals?

Homosexuality has existed throughout our entire written history, 1000's of years. Homosexuality is present in all other primates. Homosexuality has been exhibited in other non-primate mammals.

Hell there was even a Nobel prize handed out for the discovery of homosexual ducks engaging in necrophilia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ation.research

Science is the study of nature. If it has been empirically documented then it is natural. The word "unnatural" with regards to homosexuality is never used in serious academia, only talk radio and Sunday school.

If you are going to quote, then don't do the little dot thing, you changed the entire statement.

My statement was; "But, from a natural stance, homosexuality cannot reproduce offspring and therefore is unnatural."

If homosexuality were the norm then there would be no species. I'm sure we can possibly get to the point that men and women don't have sex anymore and the only way that babies are created is either by artificial insemination (still requires male input and female input) or by members of entirely homosexual populations realizing that the only way for species continuance is to copulate with the other sex.

If something is not part of the norm then it is abnormal. Clearly just a simple statement. Another simple statement is that if 95% of the population copulates penis to vagina, then that IS the norm. You cannot look at 5% of the population doing something as the norm unless you make them their own entire class and ignore the other portion of population. You spoke of science, and that just wouldn't be good science. (BTW, I don't know if my percentages are accurate. I just used them as examples)

Just because you see male monkeys jerking each other off or ass fucking doesn't mean anything more than it's what they are doing. They are still logical enough to know that the little monkeys come from the m/f pairings. You also don't find entire clans of lions, ducks, cows, etc where they are all homosexual; it's an exception to find a homosexual pairing, just as its an exception to find homosexual pairings in humans. The percentages are low throughout the entire population.

Nature at its most basic level, wishes to continue on. That which does not allow continuance would therefore be "unnatural". Twist the word however you like, but that's as basic as it gets. Pairings that don't allow for a species to continue are counter to basic natural progression.

Your statement - "If it has been empirically documented then it is natural." I'm not sure the use of the word empirical is proper here, but I'll go with it. Empirical indicates "derived from or guided by experience or experiment." Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both experienced and experimented with and if I remember right documented their murders. Would this mean that their murderous actions were thereby "natural" as well? Based on the definition I found of empirical, it would seem so?

Gay, necrophiliac ducks.... wow, that's one I didn't expect. Nicely done. Hard to rebound from that one. Sometimes there's just phrases you can't bounce back from and that was one for me today. Especially when a Nobel Prize was involved.

When did GFY become serious academia? I wasn't prepared for word policing. Just out of curiosity, is it Dr. Sultan of Smut, Ph.D? (being a total smartass. Don't go off on me for being silly. I'm saying this with a big ass grin on my face full of complete sarcasm).

You can't choose it any more than you can choose to be straight, nor decide what foods are tasty to you. Your opinion is irrational and ignores reality.

Kevin,

At what point did you 'choose' to be straight?
How often do you reaffirm that 'choice' ?
Could you 'choose' tomorrow to be attracted to men and no longer be sexually interested in women?

Logic dictates that if being 'not straight' is a choice, being 'straight' would also need to be a manual voluntary 'choice'
I have always been straight, I don't recall ever making any choices about it.
I am interested to know if your experience has been vastly different from mine, and everyone else I have ever met.

you said you don't support gay marriage. since someone elses wedding is none of your business, one can only, and fairly, assume..

a majority of america didn't agree with a lot of things, abolishment of slavery, removing segregation, etc etc

are you saying that since the majority of america supported these barbaric ideals at the time... it should have remained that way?

It's another example of relying on a piece of paper written a long time ago. What does the Constitution say about coloured people?

Was that written in the same stone other parts were?

Laws need to adapt.

he is just being diplomatic - he needs right wingers votes.