Gay Marriage? How about...

[Tigermike 3,715]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

[channonc 466]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

[CCTAU 3,536]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

Uh. can we pick and choose from your list?

This is an issue that has not been proven to be genetic or inherited or any of the things that would give it credence. The choice is made by certain individuals. Therefore you cannot equate it to race. And don't try to bring the "studies have shown" thing into this. All the tests used as a basis for this info has been proven to be flawed. Its kinda like evolution, just because someone thinks they have it figured out, doesn't mean it should be taught as fact.

[Tiger Al 0]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

Uh. can we pick and choose from your list?

This is an issue that has not been proven to be genetic or inherited or any of the things that would give it credence. The choice is made by certain individuals. Therefore you cannot equate it to race. And don't try to bring the "studies have shown" thing into this. All the tests used as a basis for this info has been proven to be flawed. Its kinda like evolution, just because someone thinks they have it figured out, doesn't mean it should be taught as fact.

What does choice or genetics have to do with it?

[Tigermike 3,715]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected?  We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

What "right" are you speaking of? Gays do not now have the "right" to marry under current law.

What about the "right" of the unborn?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

Are you comparing gay rights with the civil rights movement? With women's suffrage?

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

Since you have chosen to make the stretch with women's rights and civil rights, what about the pedophiles? They are a part of the gay rights movement. They march with and support the gay rights movement. The gay rights movement has NEVER disassociated themselves from the pedophile groups.

[channonc 466]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

Uh. can we pick and choose from your list?

This is an issue that has not been proven to be genetic or inherited or any of the things that would give it credence. The choice is made by certain individuals. Therefore you cannot equate it to race. And don't try to bring the "studies have shown" thing into this. All the tests used as a basis for this info has been proven to be flawed. Its kinda like evolution, just because someone thinks they have it figured out, doesn't mean it should be taught as fact.

Hmmm... well, genetics doesn't have anything to do with this arguement, but I will take the bait for arguments' sake.

Ok, so let's go with your thoughts that it is a choice. Well, if I CHOOSE to date someone of a different race, should I not be allowed to marry them, even if I love them? Some people still think that is wrong...

[channonc 466]

What "right" are you speaking of? Gays do not now have the "right" to marry under current law.

The right to pursue happiness, the right for equal protection under the law.

What about the "right" of the unborn?

I would rather not even go down this road, this thread was started as a debate about marriage. I was giving an example... but now let's agree to steer from this topic during this thread.

Since you have chosen to make the stretch with women's rights and civil rights, what about the pedophiles?

There are already laws in place prohibiting sex with children. We are talking about 2 consenting ADULTS

[CCTAU 3,536]

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

That is an admirable thought, but it seems to me there could be thorns on the rose. Easy to admire and say it is a great idea but hard and expensive to implement. And like abortion, this is one of those issues that ALL will never agree on and some will never even attempt to see another point of view much less agree on.

So therefore its not worth it to make sure the rights of others are protected? We should not allow gays to marry or abortions to take place b/c some will always be against them?

Taking that stand then women shouldn't be able to vote, African-Americans should go back to their seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains, Inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry... I could go on.

I understand your point, that it is a huge social change, but I don't think that is a reason to keep it illegal.

Uh. can we pick and choose from your list?

This is an issue that has not been proven to be genetic or inherited or any of the things that would give it credence. The choice is made by certain individuals. Therefore you cannot equate it to race. And don't try to bring the "studies have shown" thing into this. All the tests used as a basis for this info has been proven to be flawed. Its kinda like evolution, just because someone thinks they have it figured out, doesn't mean it should be taught as fact.

Hmmm... well, genetics doesn't have anything to do with this arguement, but I will take the bait for arguments' sake.

Ok, so let's go with your thoughts that it is a choice. Well, if I CHOOSE to date someone of a different race, should I not be allowed to marry them, even if I love them? Some people still think that is wrong...

We already said its not about genetics. Race has already been addressed in our society to the point where we have come full circle and are now disciminating against the majority.

Now if you are talking about 2 men or women of different color that wanted to mary each other, then we are back at the same old argument. If you ain't got one, you should hook up with somebody who does. And vice versa.

[Tiger Al 0]

Are you comparing gay rights with the civil rights movement?

Yes.

Since you have chosen to make the stretch with women's rights and civil rights, what about the pedophiles? They are a part of the gay rights movement. They march with and support the gay rights movement. The gay rights movement has NEVER disassociated themselves from the pedophile groups.

Ahh, the good ol' "homosexuals are pedophiles" routine. I've never seen any pedophilia/homosexual coalition. Every gay person, male or female, that I've ever known would ever consider having sex with children. In fact, most, if not all, known pedophiles have been shown to be heterosexual.

[Tiger Al 0]

Now if you are talking about 2 men or women of different color that wanted to mary each other, then we are back at the same old argument. If you ain't got one, you should hook up with somebody who does. And vice versa.

And you should certainly be free to act on your beliefs. How would the existance of civil unions affect the choices you make for yourself and who you marry?

[channonc 466]

Ahh, the good ol' "homosexuals are pedophiles" routine. I've never seen any pedophilia/homosexual coalition. Every gay person, male or female, that I've ever known would ever consider having sex with children. In fact, most, if not all, known pedophiles have been shown to be heterosexual.

To add to what you were saying, I took a Sex Crimes class at Auburn, and one of the things we discussed was pedophila and how most of the time they prefer adults that are the opposite sex and children of the same sex.

Finally, what does pediphiles have to do with homosexuals? I am confused. Gay=pedophile?

[Tiger Al 0]

I am confused. Gay=pedophile?

I'm still trying to figure out the insurance angle. If the government is going to force everyone to have health insurance, then what difference does it make whether two gays are in a civil union? They'll be covered as individuals anyway.

[channonc 466]

Guessing here, but I think Mike was referring to gay couples where one person doesn't work-- so they would have to rely on the partner for health benefits? Kind of like married straight couples where one person doesn't work.

Again, totally guessing.

[Tiger Al 0]

I was thinking that it was tied in with the Democrats wanting health coverage for all when he used the term "forcing". I don't think the gov't. "forces" anyone to provide health insurance. Maybe he'll clarify.

[Tigermike 3,715]

What "right" are you speaking of? Gays do not now have the "right" to marry under current law.

The right to pursue happiness, the right for equal protection under the law.

What about the "right" of the unborn?

I would rather not even go down this road, this thread was started as a debate about marriage. I was giving an example... but now let's agree to steer from this topic during this thread.

Since you have chosen to make the stretch with women's rights and civil rights, what about the pedophiles?

There are already laws in place prohibiting sex with children. We are talking about 2 consenting ADULTS

There are also laws prohibiting sex between males even if they are consenting. I am not attempting to hijack this discussion, merely making comparisons. A mere 50 years ago no one would have ever thought abortions would have caused such a stir. It was against the law then, against the law to obtain one and against the law to perform one. The rhetoric and argument then was to make them available and the young girls would not have to go to "illegal", "back alley" abortionists. SINCE the pedophiles are members of the gay & lesbian alliance is it not logical to think that maybe someday they will start a push to make "sex with children" legal?

That is where I was going with that.

[Tigermike 3,715]

Are you comparing gay rights with the civil rights movement?

Yes.

Since you have chosen to make the stretch with women's rights and civil rights, what about the pedophiles? They are a part of the gay rights movement. They march with and support the gay rights movement. The gay rights movement has NEVER disassociated themselves from the pedophile groups.

Ahh, the good ol' "homosexuals are pedophiles" routine. I've never seen any pedophilia/homosexual coalition. Every gay person, male or female, that I've ever known would ever consider having sex with children. In fact, most, if not all, known pedophiles have been shown to be heterosexual.

The NAACP and 99% of all blacks would disagree with you.

Why then do the pedophiles march in the gay rights marches? Why have the gay rights people not distanced themselves from them?

Ahh, the good ol' "homosexuals are pedophiles" routine.

Ahh the good ol' democrat denigration routine.

[Tiger Al 0]

SINCE the pedophiles are members of the gay & lesbian alliance is it not logical to think that maybe someday they will start a push to make "sex with children" legal?

I don't accept your assertion that pedophiles ARE in alliance with them. You've yet to show, or even explain, how they are. You've merely stated your opinion.

[Tigermike 3,715]

Finally, what does pediphiles have to do with homosexuals? I am confused. Gay=pedophile?

That is not the connection I am making. Merely that every time the gays have a march in San Fran or NY or Chicago or Dallas almost anywhere, the pedophiles are marching with them. If they do not accept and/or want rights for why not distance themselves from them. If I were planning to demonstrate about an issue, no matter what, if NAMBLA or the KKK or ANY group I did not agree with were planning to be there I would not participate. It is that simple.

[Tigermike 3,715]

SINCE the pedophiles are members of the gay & lesbian alliance is it not logical to think that maybe someday they will start a push to make "sex with children" legal?

I don't accept your assertion that pedophiles ARE in alliance with them. You've yet to show, or even explain, how they are. You've merely stated your opinion.

And I don't accept your assertion that the gay rights movement should be compared favorably with the civil rights movement.

[Tiger Al 0]

Gays, as citizens of this country do have civil rights. It is now a matter of recognizing, legally, those rights and not creating legislation that suppresses them.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Gays, as citizens of this country do have civil rights. It is now a matter of recognizing, legally, those rights and not creating legislation that suppresses them.

what legislation is going to surpress which rights?

[Tiger Al 0]

Gays, as citizens of this country do have civil rights. It is now a matter of recognizing, legally, those rights and not creating legislation that suppresses them.

what legislation is going to surpress which rights?

DOMA, for one.

[CCTAU 3,536]

Gays, as citizens of this country do have civil rights. It is now a matter of recognizing, legally, those rights and not creating legislation that suppresses them.

what legislation is going to surpress which rights?

They have rights as individuals, but not as couples. Laws for couples were created because that is the natural way of life. We cannot begin to legislate laws for people who choose a way of life. That goes back to my doggie sex argument. Being with the opposite sex is normal and natural. It is not a choice, it is the basis of pro-createion for mankind. Just because we think the earth is full enough,does not make this fact go away.

So we can't go making up rights for something that is a choice.

[channonc 466]

Your argument implies that marriage was created and is sustained for procreation. If that is true, what about individuals who cannot have children, do they not have the right to get married?

[CCTAU 3,536]

Your argument implies that marriage was created and is sustained for procreation. If that is true, what about individuals who cannot have children, do they not have the right to get married?

Whether or not the procreation happens is NOT the question. The basic makeup of humankind follows this. Just because some feel the need to be different or choose an alternative lifestyle does not change this. The pedophile argument is a stretch, for now. but what about down the road. People look back and say, "hey we thaought gay marriage was bad until back in the early 2000s, we cuold be wrong about this now." One inch is always the first distance to reach a mile. Pandora's box could be opened at any time. Maybe this is it, maybe not. But I don't think we are squelching the progression of mankind by NOT accepting gay marriage in society.