Gay Marraige

[Dubb]

On the "use another word" stuff:

the word "marriage" is pretty loaded in our society...Being "married" lends a certain weight and seriousness to your relationship with your partner. Note that I'm only talking about the contemporary use of the word...not any of it's religious or governmental roots, which, IMO, don't matter today.

Requireing homosexuals to use a different word effectively denies them the cultural weight carried by it, which straight people have access to. That effectively puts homosexual relationships on a lower level than heterosexual ones. Were I gay, I would find that enormously insulting.

I understand the need for compromise...and maybe using a different word is a good first step...but ultimately it's unfair and culturally demeaning.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

The difference is that there is no reason there should be a compromise. What you're promoting is basically a system of "separate but equal".

No, I'm promoting common sense in the interest of allowing one side to get exactly what they claim to want, and the other to keep hold of an illusion that would in effect be rendered harmless. And yes there IS a reason for there to be a compromise-thats how resolution of conflict begins. You don't think that after a few years, people would have accepted it and come to view it as harmless?

But whatever. Neither side is exactly famous for exhibiting any sense. God vs. Sodomites it is!

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

The difference is that there is no reason there should be a compromise. What you're promoting is basically a system of "separate but equal".

No, I'm promoting common sense in the interest of allowing one side to get exactly what they claim to want, and the other to keep hold of an illusion that would in effect be rendered harmless. And yes there IS a reason for there to be a compromise-thats how resolution of conflict begins. You don't think that after a few years, people would have accepted it and come to view it as harmless?

But whatever. Neither side is exactly famous for exhibiting any sense. God vs. Sodomites it is!

I wonder why you are saying "no", and then not refuting my assertion. Giving them the same rights but insisting it be called something else is separate but equal.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Dubb
On the "use another word" stuff:

the word "marriage" is pretty loaded in our society...Being "married" lends a certain weight and seriousness to your relationship with your partner. Note that I'm only talking about the contemporary use of the word...not any of it's religious or governmental roots, which, IMO, don't matter today.

Requireing homosexuals to use a different word effectively denies them the cultural weight carried by it, which straight people have access to. That effectively puts homosexual relationships on a lower level than heterosexual ones. Were I gay, I would find that enormously insulting.

I understand the need for compromise...and maybe using a different word is a good first step...but ultimately it's unfair and culturally demeaning.

The big reason that I'm OK with separate but equal -- as it applies to the word marriage -- is because I'm sure that those lines will blur rather quickly, and it will all be synonymous before long.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

QFS

I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

What does Quoted For Steak have to do with my similarity to christians?

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

The difference is that there is no reason there should be a compromise. What you're promoting is basically a system of "separate but equal".

No, I'm promoting common sense in the interest of allowing one side to get exactly what they claim to want, and the other to keep hold of an illusion that would in effect be rendered harmless. And yes there IS a reason for there to be a compromise-thats how resolution of conflict begins. You don't think that after a few years, people would have accepted it and come to view it as harmless?

But whatever. Neither side is exactly famous for exhibiting any sense. God vs. Sodomites it is!

I wonder why you are saying "no", and then not refuting my assertion. Giving them the same rights but insisting it be called something else is separate but equal.

Because IMO you're making a stand on an empty word instead of enjoying the fruits of what could be a victory; and therefore, your assertion is two-dimensional and childish, just like theirs (unless of course you can prove to me that you were "born that way"). But thats OK; my wife is covered by my health, dental, and vision insurance, we get a big tax refund, and she will inherit all my property and assets. So you just keep standing on your principles...

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Dubb
On the "use another word" stuff:

the word "marriage" is pretty loaded in our society...Being "married" lends a certain weight and seriousness to your relationship with your partner. Note that I'm only talking about the contemporary use of the word...not any of it's religious or governmental roots, which, IMO, don't matter today.

Requireing homosexuals to use a different word effectively denies them the cultural weight carried by it, which straight people have access to. That effectively puts homosexual relationships on a lower level than heterosexual ones. Were I gay, I would find that enormously insulting.

I understand the need for compromise...and maybe using a different word is a good first step...but ultimately it's unfair and culturally demeaning.

The big reason that I'm OK with separate but equal -- as it applies to the word marriage -- is because I'm sure that those lines will blur rather quickly, and it will all be synonymous before long.

I suppose that's possible...but I would expect it to trend in the other direction...those fighting harshest against gay marriage (and maybe some middle-of-the-road folks too) would see such a compromise as an admission that homosexual relationships really are less serious/important/weighty than heterosexual ones...and cement those views even further.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

QFS

I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

What does Quoted For Steak have to do with my similarity to christians?

:laugh:

Just for that, I apologize.

 

[Brutuskend]

GEEZ.

This argument will never come to an end.

Gays trying to change the minds of people against gay marriage is just as futile and unlikely to happen as US trying to get YOU to change your sexual orientation. It just isn't going to happen!

The issue was brought up in this country and THE PEOPLE voted against it. That is how a democracy works, like it or not. If you don't like it move somewhere else. Or better yet use your energy in a more productive way. Start a campaign to band all the homosexuals in the world together, pool your funds and buy a Island somewhere and start your own country and make your OWN laws!

If you feel persecuted, think back on how it used to be in this country for gays. If you think YOU are persecuted, think about how the Jews had it. Or for that matter how they STILL have it! People being persecuted for religious reasons go back a long way and it's very common for them to gather together and go someplace else and start over. That is in a large part how THIS country came about to begin with. Then there is the Rev. George Jones and his people. And the Mormons and the list goes on and on.

Maybe you could band together and petition the U.N. for your own country like the Jewish people did after WWII. Their traditional homeland was, historically where Israel is now. I'm pretty sure they think they found where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood, maybe that would be considered they Gay's homeland historically speaking. You already know how the majority of people in the U.S. feel about Gay marriages. I'm sure God has that area already pre sighted in, so maybe you could find out once and for all how HE really feels on the subject.

For the most part I say live and let live. But I'm getting damn sick of this whole issue. It was put to a vote and it was voted down. Stop whining about it and either move on or do one of the things I suggested above.

Like I said trying to change our minds is like US trying to change your sexuality. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't expect you to sit there and let me try. Please extend US the same courtesy.

 

[NanoStuff]

I don't mind it as long as they're not my neighbours and I don't have to see them at work.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Because IMO you're making a stand on an empty word instead of enjoying the fruits of what could be a victory; and therefore, your assertion is two-dimensional and childish, just like theirs (unless of course you can prove to me that you were "born that way"). But thats OK; my wife is covered by my health, dental, and vision insurance, we get a big tax refund, and she will inherit all my property and assets. So you just keep standing on your principles...

I'm not gay, and have nothing to lose or gain through the legalization of gay marriage. Furthermore (and therefore), the main point is that it does not matter what my principles are or whether I stand on them or not. It is up to those who stand to gain (gays) to decide how and for what they fight. If they think it's worth fighting for true equality, then I believe that is righteous. Not only that, but anyone opposed to gay marriage has no right to ask gays to accept "separate but equal". If gays want to accept that then that is their choice, but nobody else has the right to ask that of them.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
GEEZ.

This argument will never come to an end.

Gays trying to change the minds of people against gay marriage is just as futile and unlikely to happen as US trying to get YOU to change your sexual orientation. It just isn't going to happen!

The issue was brought up in this country and THE PEOPLE voted against it. That is how a democracy works, like it or not. If you don't like it move somewhere else. Or better yet use your energy in a more productive way. Start a campaign to band all the homosexuals in the world together, pool your funds and buy a Island somewhere and start your own country and make your OWN laws!

If you feel persecuted, think back on how it used to be in this country for gays. If you think YOU are persecuted, think about how the Jews had it. Or for that matter how they STILL have it! People being persecuted for religious reasons go back a long way and it's very common for them to gather together and go someplace else and start over. That is in a large part how THIS country came about to begin with. Then there is the Rev. George Jones and his people. And the Mormons and the list goes on and on.

Maybe you could band together and petition the U.N. for your own country like the Jewish people did after WWII. Their traditional homeland was, historically where Israel is now. I'm pretty sure they think they found where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood, maybe that would be considered they Gay's homeland historically speaking. You already know how the majority of people in the U.S. feel about Gay marriages. I'm sure God has that area already pre sighted in, so maybe you could find out once and for all how HE really feels on the subject.

For the most part I say live and let live. But I'm getting damn sick of this whole issue. It was put to a vote and it was voted down. Stop whining about it and either move on or do one of the things I suggested above.

Like I said trying to change our minds is like US trying to change your sexuality. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't expect you to sit there and let me try. Please extend US the same courtesy.

When the hell was this voted on federally? It was voted on in many states, and in some states, it was a very close issue. At least one state has made it legal.

No offense to you personally, but I just lost a tremendous amount of respect that I had for you. Screw you and your ****** dog.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
I don't mind it as long as they're not my neighbours and I don't have to see them at work.

Why do those things matter? They're just people.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
GEEZ.

This argument will never come to an end.

Gays trying to change the minds of people against gay marriage is just as futile and unlikely to happen as US trying to get YOU to change your sexual orientation. It just isn't going to happen!

The issue was brought up in this country and THE PEOPLE voted against it. That is how a democracy works, like it or not. If you don't like it move somewhere else. Or better yet use your energy in a more productive way. Start a campaign to band all the homosexuals in the world together, pool your funds and buy a Island somewhere and start your own country and make your OWN laws!

If you feel persecuted, think back on how it used to be in this country for gays. If you think YOU are persecuted, think about how the Jews had it. Or for that matter how they STILL have it! People being persecuted for religious reasons go back a long way and it's very common for them to gather together and go someplace else and start over. That is in a large part how THIS country came about to begin with. Then there is the Rev. George Jones and his people. And the Mormons and the list goes on and on.

Maybe you could band together and petition the U.N. for your own country like the Jewish people did after WWII. Their traditional homeland was, historically where Israel is now. I'm pretty sure they think they found where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood, maybe that would be considered they Gay's homeland historically speaking. You already know how the majority of people in the U.S. feel about Gay marriages. I'm sure God has that area already pre sighted in, so maybe you could find out once and for all how HE really feels on the subject.

For the most part I say live and let live. But I'm getting damn sick of this whole issue. It was put to a vote and it was voted down. Stop whining about it and either move on or do one of the things I suggested above.

Like I said trying to change our minds is like US trying to change your sexuality. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't expect you to sit there and let me try. Please extend US the same courtesy.

When the hell was this voted on federally? It was voted on in many states, and in some states, it was a very close issue. At least one state has made it legal.

No offense to you personally, but I just lost a tremendous amount of respect that I had for you. Screw you and your ****** dog.

Nicely done.

I really was trying to suggest alternatives and do so with out being derogatory.

Maybe it didn't come off that way.

Still.

Nicely done.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Because IMO you're making a stand on an empty word instead of enjoying the fruits of what could be a victory; and therefore, your assertion is two-dimensional and childish, just like theirs (unless of course you can prove to me that you were "born that way"). But thats OK; my wife is covered by my health, dental, and vision insurance, we get a big tax refund, and she will inherit all my property and assets. So you just keep standing on your principles...

I'm not gay, and have nothing to lose or gain through the legalization of gay marriage. Furthermore (and therefore), the main point is that it does not matter what my principles are or whether I stand on them or not. It is up to those who stand to gain (gays) to decide how and for what they fight. If they think it's worth fighting for true equality, then I believe that is righteous. Not only that, but anyone opposed to gay marriage has no right to ask gays to accept "separate but equal". If gays want to accept that then that is their choice, but nobody else has the right to ask that of them.

OK, when you put it that way, I guess you have a point. What do I care anyway? I'm already enjoying the "benefits" :roll: of marriage.

 

[Brutuskend]

One other thing I would like to add.

To understand MY views on gays you would have to know a bit about MY past experiences with them.

Up until about the time I was 18-19 I HAD NO problems with them and for the most part I still don't. But after being assaulted several times and propositioned more times than I can count, I lost respect for a lot of THEM to.

But I still refrain from personal attacks on them either physically or verbally.

 

[kogase]

Um, heh. Nevermind.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
One other thing I would like to add.

To understand MY views on gays you would have to know a bit about MY past experiences with them.

Up until about the time I was 18-19 I HAD NO problems with them and for the most part I still don't. But after being assaulted several times and propositioned more times than I can count, I lost respect for a lot of THEM to.

But I still refrain from personal attacks on them either physically or verbally.

This is pretty much the first time I've personally attacked someone that I don't intimately know. The "alternatives" you were mentioning are not possible alternatives, and you know it.

Don't *even* try to blame assaults on the community. I've certainly never physically assaulted anyone before, nor will I ever, and I can't think of any gays that would.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
One other thing I would like to add.

To understand MY views on gays you would have to know a bit about MY past experiences with them.

Up until about the time I was 18-19 I HAD NO problems with them and for the most part I still don't. But after being assaulted several times and propositioned more times than I can count, I lost respect for a lot of THEM to.

But I still refrain from personal attacks on them either physically or verbally.

This is pretty much the first time I've personally attacked someone that I don't intimately know. The "alternatives" you were mentioning are not possible alternatives, and you know it.

Don't *even* try to blame assaults on the community. I've certainly never physically assaulted anyone before, nor will I ever, and I can't think of any gays that would.

And WHY aren't they plausible? The Mormons wanted to change the marriage laws so THEY started their own community. Others have done the same for religious reasons so why not for THIS reason?

And as far as the change of attitude thing goes. Are you denying that SOME people don't change their sexual orientation because of being sexually assaulted? I have NO DOUBT in my mind that there are MANY woman that have done JUST that for just that reason. So for me to change my attitude about some gays for that reason is un reasonable? Just because all gays aren't like that isn't going to make me except that no gays are. Not all dogs bite, but once you get bitten, you will naturally be leery of all dogs.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Cabages
I hope gay marraiges are never allowed. But I also am not senseless. I know it is there constitutional right (at least here in the U.S.) to be able to have the same rights as any other person.

But personally, I find it disgusting and that is disvalues marraige.

:thumbsup:

I think it's great that you're able to see the big picture past your opinions and allow others to have theirs as well. Too few people are willing to do that these days, espousing our freedom and the importance of protecting it, then saying we shouldn't be able to own guns, marry members of the same gender, put chemicals into our bodies, etc., entirely missing the point of true freedom.

The Constitution does not exist to satisfy every possible interpretation of the words "true freedom".

The Constitution seeks to provide every freedom possible to the citizens beyond those freedoms which directly, deliberately, and significantly negatively affect other citizens. Unless you can show a way in which gay marriage falls under the latter description, you cannot justify making anti-gay-marriage language a part of the Constitution. I would go further and say that unless you can do that you are unjustified in saying that gay marriage should be prohibited by any non-Constitutional law as well. It doesn't matter if gay marriage benefits society or not, the only question is whether or not it harms society or other individual citizens.

The Constitution doesn't do anything of the sort; it prescribes some specific rights, but largely leaves things open-ended. In addition, the word "freedom" does not apply in this case, since the things sought by gays are changes to laws that will grant them extra considerations such as tax breaks, not just the freedom from restriction to do some things.

Just one of the actual freedoms not granted by the Constitution, which harms no one else by its nature alone, is personal drug use. The Supreme Court is fine with federal and state laws which proscribe this activity, as the laws don't infringe on your Constitutional rights. There is no plan to change this.

The Constitution does everything of the sort, and it's because it's so open-ended that we have non-Constitutional law. The Constitution provides a basic framework of freedoms, while federal, state and local laws provide specific laws aimed at granting or curtailing freedoms (so long as they do not contradict the Constitution) basically suited to regional needs and customs. Why do I point this out? I'm refuting the justification for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

However, this is not the point I'm attempting to focus on for the most part in this thread. You have yet to address my other main points.

There's no point in having a discusion with someone who won't admit they're wrong on something so basic. Admit you made a boo-boo and we can continue.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

While marriage may have started out an institute of the church, it is now an institute of the state. How this came to be and whether you like it or not are irrelevant. As an institute of the state it should not be discriminatory. Perhaps christians need to come up with another term for it... how's "christian union" sound?

I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

right, non christian marriages should now be labeled infidel marriages. or godless marriages, that would please the christians, a small concession. mixed race marriages would be called blood pollution marriages to appease the racists. small concession. just a word . why antagonize racists and fundamentalists? cuz clearly reasonable people should have to bend over backwards for the bigots.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
One other thing I would like to add.

To understand MY views on gays you would have to know a bit about MY past experiences with them.

Up until about the time I was 18-19 I HAD NO problems with them and for the most part I still don't. But after being assaulted several times and propositioned more times than I can count, I lost respect for a lot of THEM to.

But I still refrain from personal attacks on them either physically or verbally.

This is pretty much the first time I've personally attacked someone that I don't intimately know. The "alternatives" you were mentioning are not possible alternatives, and you know it.

Don't *even* try to blame assaults on the community. I've certainly never physically assaulted anyone before, nor will I ever, and I can't think of any gays that would.

And WHY aren't they plausible? The Mormons wanted to change the marriage laws so THEY started their own community. Others have done the same for religious reasons so why not for THIS reason?

And as far as the change of attitude thing goes. Are you denying that SOME people don't change their sexual orientation because of being sexually assaulted? I have NO DOUBT in my mind that there are MANY woman that have done JUST that for just that reason. So for me to change my attitude about some gays for that reason is un reasonable? Just because all gays aren't like that isn't going to make me except that no gays are. Not all dogs bite, but once you get bitten, you will naturally be leery of all dogs.

I think that it doesn't seem all that plausible for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that there are huge divides within the community -- some of us hate others of us. Our only common link is one single sexual preference.

Religious reasons are pretty much an entire way of living that is common to people, so it seems that it would be fairly easy for those people to "get along". That's not even remotely true in the gay community.

No, I do not deny that people choose to change their sexual orientation as a result of assaults and other life-altering events. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for you to have a poor attitude about some people, if they've caused you harm. On the other hand, I find it completely unreasonable that you find fault with the entire gay community. I also find it unreasonable and illogical that women that are assaulted find fault with all men, but I know it happens.

I've been attacked by several dogs -- for a long time, I wouldn't go remotely close to any dogs, at all. Not even if they were on heavy chains, caged up, and I was behind safety glass. No way, no how. Wasn't happening. Since then, I've accepted that I was being completely unreasonable, and now there are a lot of dogs that I like, and that come running up to me, and I pet them, etc., whenever I'm around them. While I don't necessarily think that this comparison is completely valid, I can't think of a better one.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nope, there aren't any good arguments against. Just the usual ignorant rhetoric from the religious nutjobs.

 

[Brutuskend]

I think that it doesn't seem all that plausible for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that there are huge divides within the community -- some of us hate others of us. Our only common link is one single sexual preference.

Religious reasons are pretty much an entire way of living that is common to people, so it seems that it would be fairly easy for those people to "get along". That's not even remotely true in the gay community.

Yeah, you NEVER hear about one Catholic killing another Catholic or one Protestant killing another. And I'm sure ALL Jewish people get along like one big happy family. Lord knows that ALL Muslims get along together famously.

I really don't see WHY a separate country based around sexual orientation isn't a good idea if you all want to change things.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

While marriage may have started out an institute of the church, it is now an institute of the state. How this came to be and whether you like it or not are irrelevant. As an institute of the state it should not be discriminatory. Perhaps christians need to come up with another term for it... how's "christian union" sound?

I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

right, non christian marriages should now be labeled infidel marriages. or godless marriages, that would please the christians, a small concession. mixed race marriages would be called blood pollution marriages to appease the racists. small concession. just a word . why antagonize racists and fundamentalists? cuz clearly reasonable people should have to bend over backwards for the bigots.

"Reasonable" people? Did you read your post? Race is definitely something you're born with. Sexual preference may or may not be. So how do I know people aren't born Christian, too? Has it ever occured to you that by assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a racist and homophobe, YOU become the bigot? So why should I care what either side thinks? If I apply your logic, then you're both apparently the same; rigid and intolerant. Whats next, you wanna toss Hitler in there somehow?

Just go ahead and argue with yourself. I already threw in the towel a few posts above your profound observation.