What is your argument against gay marriage

Also evidence that gays did and still do play a part in African culture. In some communities lesbian women were considered to be special members of societies, since they were considered to have more in the way of nurturing instinct.

Why the hell should I care who you rub your genitals against? That is your problem...

 

Any history of humans that goes beyond pre-recorded history is always at best speculation and guessing done on the best evidence we have left to find, but the best educated guess is homosexuality existed long before humans even existed in their current form is by looking at the fact all great ape species have homosexual tendencies, while our closest genetic relative the bonobo has extreme homosexual tendencies in both males and females, to the point any bonobo who wasn't bisexual wouldn't fit into their society as sex both gay and straight is make up a large part of their social customs in both play, trade and as a way to lower conflict.(sounds pretty human).

 

i have had gay cats, male cats who prefer both the sexual favors and companionship of males to females

one of my cats even had 'gaydar', preferring the company of gay male human beings to straight

algy was all over my grandfather for years, long before he came out of the closet

[so he hadn't been told and couldn't have known otherwise ]

edited to clarify: it was my grandfather who came out of the closet, algy was never in

 

This cat was a male, homosexual pedophile. I had a really hard time keeping off of the male kittens. He never had any interest in females or grown males, just young male kittens. He was descended from a mix of a big house cat and a Texas Bobcat. He disappeared when he was about 8. I figured that he probably tried to screw somebody's kitten and got shot.

At times it was really funny. I would have to kick him off of a kitten and he would run around me and jump back on.



.

 

no, this cat chose a homosexual, pedophile lifestyle

because he hates jesus

get a clue, would ya?

 

You might be right, he wasn't much of a people person, and I don't think he would have taken to the Baptism either.

.

 

i'm dying . . .

 

Remove all mention of "marriage" from law and tax codes and there would be no controversy. Leave them in place then it is a matter of civil equality.

 

How about when your same sex loved one is in the intensive care unit and you're told, sorry, only immediate family. Or should they die and you're told, sorry it's a closed funeral for family only; then the children you've been parenting for 10 years are taken because you have no legal claim.

You cannot remove all mention of marriage from law because much of it is assumed, as in "closest relative." The act of marriage creates a relationship that is recognized in law as superior to parents, children and siblings. Thus, the evil step mother gets the house and fortune, or in the homosexual sense, the nutty queer gets the gold.

This is the reason people marry, to make that one person superior in all respects to everyone else, not only for their own gratification, but to have that relationship upheld by law. Since approximately 10% of any given population of humans is homosexual, that 10% is denied the right to make their choice of whom will be that special superior relative.

The stakes are more than a fancy, or unique, ceremony. It's more than a declaration of love. It's the creation of a relationship that will endure time, family quarrels, and even legal challenges. Anything less than having the choice of marriage is not acceptable.

.

 

JackFlash, will you marry me? Seems like it might be better off for both of us.

 

It wouldn't work out, you're imaginary and I'm a realist, our worlds would never meet.

.

 

Exactly my point. Civil Unions are not held in the same esteem. They are not seen as equal to marriage by law. So the solution would be remove all mention of marriage in law and code. And if marriage is to be defined by religious traditions and stipulation all the more reason it should be removed and replaced with "civil union", if "civil union" is the only alternative left for everyone wishing the same legal protections for their "very personal" relationships.

To maintain a double standard is a simple matter of discrimination, much like the earlier race laws were.

 

who's gonna pay for that?

cheaper to just let people marry, not a single lawyer needs to get involved

and then there's even additional revenue from licensing . . .

 

but it is not defined that way now

i can't figure out why this seems to be so difficult to understand

anyone, right now, can go to city hall and get married without a single religious figure present or a single religious word spoken

there is not one goddamn thing religious about marriage as it stands today, unless a couple wishes it to be so

otherwise atheists would never marry . . .

 

i think that when gay people want to get married,they should....why not?
in the netherlands gay people can be married whitout a problem and thats how it should be..

who thinks the pope he is?as long people are thinking like him,it will always be like this...in some countries they go to jail or get murdered.the church has so much power,i think THAT is criminal

 

That's true but the religious right seeks to define who can and cannot get married.

 

Precisely. And it's something conservatives never address. It would be the cheaper alternative. In this era of deficit and debt hysteria it is amazing that they haven't considered the cost of protecting their discriminatory advantage. They spent a bundle on lobbying for prop 8.

Interesting article on the amount spent and who spent it:

http://coloradoindependent.com/2127...tly-outpaced-mormon-spending-on-proposition-8

Funny thing most of them weren't even based in California.

 

And here is where the conservative mantra of "State's Rights' begins to fall apart. While they promote each state having it's autonomy, they have no problems spending money to influence politics in states in which they do not live and work. This article highlights that hypocrisy.

.

 

there is no reason. personally im weirded out by it, but ignorant people needa accept that there will be gays whereveer they go, may aswell let them marry each other

 

Just create another word for it, and leave marry, marriage, husband and wife defined as they have long been and accepted to be in every country in the world. Make changes as necessary in written documents to reflect the additional named relationship to be equal.
Marriage License = Marriage/{new term} License etc.