Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture. Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority. Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow marriages of these couples (maybe in goofy California). How about allowing marriages between farmers and their beloved sheep? I think you have to look back to the standards by which this country was founded, examine the moral foundation of the majority of Americans, and then deduce what is the legal definition of marriage. If the country was founded by persecuted gays from Rotterdam, ...

Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture. Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority. Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow marriages of these couples (maybe in goofy California). How about allowing marriages between farmers and their beloved sheep? I think you have to look back to the standards by which this country was founded, examine the moral foundation of the majority of Americans, and then deduce what is the legal definition of marriage. If the country was founded by persecuted gays from Rotterdam, and the basis of the U.S. was specifically a refuge for persecuted gays, and the majority of the country were gay people, then the institute of marriage might look completely different. (wouldn't last more than a couple of generations, though). You don't have to hate homosexuals or use hateful labels to understand that marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and rearing children. Let gay couples call their union a "partnership" and let the state afford them "partnership rights". But don't invade the sanctity of marriage.

OK Pkonfield,
Now listen ya sexy little skinhead, and I'll try to pound some sense in between those two ears

Your logic is rather what shall I say; flawed. It's only hetero guys on stranded lonely farms like say in maybe Texas? that wanna marry sheep sugar.
Now try to bear in mind that ppl are different. Let me quote this guy I really admire:

All human beings are all human. Men and womane, homosexual persons and heterosexual person, all races, nationalities, and persons of any ethnic background, all rich and poor, old and young. How can I enslave, segregate, denigrate, oppress, violate, or victimize?
Biship Spong

And as more and more courts are c...

OK Pkonfield,
Now listen ya sexy little skinhead, and I'll try to pound some sense in between those two ears

Your logic is rather what shall I say; flawed. It's only hetero guys on stranded lonely farms like say in maybe Texas? that wanna marry sheep sugar.
Now try to bear in mind that ppl are different. Let me quote this guy I really admire:

All human beings are all human. Men and womane, homosexual persons and heterosexual person, all races, nationalities, and persons of any ethnic background, all rich and poor, old and young. How can I enslave, segregate, denigrate, oppress, violate, or victimize?
Biship Spong

And as more and more courts are confirming, there are 0 constitutional gounds for the state to deny the priviledge and benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians. Regardless of one's sexual orientations, we all have the same rights as every other American and cannot be treated as second-class citizens.

Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture.

But we are not every country. We are THIS country... a country which is dedicated (supposedly) to freedom & liberty.

Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority.

I have yet to see any proof of any detriment to the majority caused by two loving people being married. Your argument is as sensible as the banning of two blond people marrying. There is no inherent derogatory outcome from the marriage event.

Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow marriag...

read more»

Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture.

But we are not every country. We are THIS country... a country which is dedicated (supposedly) to freedom & liberty.

Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority.

I have yet to see any proof of any detriment to the majority caused by two loving people being married. Your argument is as sensible as the banning of two blond people marrying. There is no inherent derogatory outcome from the marriage event.

Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow marriages of these couples (maybe in goofy California). How about allowing marriages between farmers and their beloved sheep?

Both are strawman arguments with no logical standing in the discussion. Call me when a dog wants to marry a zebra and I might listen.

I think you have to look back to the standards by which this country was founded,

Freedom and liberty were the first two.

examine the moral foundation of the majority of Americans,

Why does the majority matter in decisions of personal lifestyle? Again, there is NO detriment to society found in gay marriage. NONE. Oh wait, I forgot. Some narrow-minded tight-ass has his panties in a bunch at the thought of somebody doing what he wouldn’t, even though he has no horse in the race.

and then deduce what is the legal definition of marriage.

A mono-species financial-societal element composed of voluntary partners dedicated to a shared existence. Boy, that was hard.

While I believe there is a distinct separation between the idea of polygamy and the perverted practices of it portrayed in the media, and the fact that I really don’t give a hoot personally about its practice between consenting adults, the institution of marriage arguably should allow for it. I am not championing that c

Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture.

But we are not every country. We are THIS country... a country which is dedicated (supposedly) to freedom & liberty.

Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority.

I have yet to see any proof of any detriment to the majority caused by two loving people being married. Your argument is as sensible as the banning of two blond people marrying. There is no inherent derogatory outcome from the marriage event.

Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow mar...

read more»

Fact remains, gays are a distinct minority in not only this country but every human culture.

But we are not every country. We are THIS country... a country which is dedicated (supposedly) to freedom & liberty.

Why should a minority's lifestyle and demands so affect the majority.

I have yet to see any proof of any detriment to the majority caused by two loving people being married. Your argument is as sensible as the banning of two blond people marrying. There is no inherent derogatory outcome from the marriage event.

Let's say there are 0.00001% of Americans who are consumed with sucking the toes of elephants. Do you think it possible that courts would allow marriages of these couples (maybe in goofy California). How about allowing marriages between farmers and their beloved sheep?

Both are strawman arguments with no logical standing in the discussion. Call me when a dog wants to marry a zebra and I might listen.

I think you have to look back to the standards by which this country was founded,

Freedom and liberty were the first two.

examine the moral foundation of the majority of Americans,

Why does the majority matter in decisions of personal lifestyle? Again, there is NO detriment to society found in gay marriage. NONE. Oh wait, I forgot. Some narrow-minded tight-ass has his panties in a bunch at the thought of somebody doing what he wouldn’t, even though he has no horse in the race.

and then deduce what is the legal definition of marriage.

A mono-species financial-societal element composed of voluntary partners dedicated to a shared existence. Boy, that was hard.

While I believe there is a distinct separation between the idea of polygamy and the perverted practices of it portrayed in the media, and the fact that I really don’t give a hoot personally about its practice between consenting adults, the institution of marriage arguably should allow for it. I am not championing th

While I believe there is a distinct separation between the idea of polygamy and the perverted practices of it portrayed in the media, and the fact that I really don’t give a hoot personally about its practice between consenting adults, the institution of marriage arguably should allow for it. I am not championing that cause here, only extending the rationality of logic to the obvious.

If the country was founded by persecuted gays from Rotterdam, and the basis of the U.S. was specifically a refuge for persecuted gays, and the majority of the country were gay people, then the institute of marriage might look completely different. (wouldn't last more than a couple of generations, though...

While I believe there is a distinct separation between the idea of polygamy and the perverted practices of it portrayed in the media, and the fact that I really don’t give a hoot personally about its practice between consenting adults, the institution of marriage arguably should allow for it. I am not championing that cause here, only extending the rationality of logic to the obvious.

If the country was founded by persecuted gays from Rotterdam, and the basis of the U.S. was specifically a refuge for persecuted gays, and the majority of the country were gay people, then the institute of marriage might look completely different. (wouldn't last more than a couple of generations, though).

Remember, it wasn’t freedom of religion upon which this country was founded, but rather the idea of and desire for freedom from tyranny of all stripes. Freedom of religion is one of the benefits the founding of the country afforded. That freedom recognizes that there is much tyranny in religious practice. That one cares to subjugate themselves as an individual is their personal choice, not one imposed by society.

You don't have to hate homosexuals or use hateful labels to understand that marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and rearing children. Let gay couples call their union a "partnership" and let the state afford them "partnership rights". But don't invade the sanctity of marriage.

That is a “sanctity” you and your religious beliefs impose upon the notion. Now, if your church wants to bar members of same-sex marriages, or not conduct ceremonies creating such unions, I’m completely with you on your right to do so. However, until the city hall ceases to issue a “Marriage License” to any members of any proposed union and starts to issue “Partnership Licenses” to any and all applicants regardless of sexual identity, gay-marriage it is.