Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When a male dog is humping another he's not in love, he's in heat and will take what he can get, he won't choose a male over a female, when a monkey punks another it's not love, it's aggression to show who is boss and put the other in it's place, when a anomal is placed in captivity they will act abnormal just as prisoners do, keep dreaming, you can justify anything if you put your mind to it.
Dogs are not monogamous and neither are monkeys. Should that fact negate the concept of monogamy?
As for what prisoners do or do not do.......I would hardly look to the heterosexual criminal subset of our population to dictate norms.
What's even more ironic is that I've never engaged in sodomy and truly have no desire to. In that sense I'm more conservative sexually probably than many of the right-wing heterosexuals that start foaming at the mouth saying "...but the parts don't fit together!!!"
I know....apparently this is a huge 'fantasy' for straight guys -- who knew?
Nonetheless, that and oral sex (not to mention condoms, vasectomies and the pill) pretty much kill the argument that sex is a procreational act rather then a recreational one.
I don't believe for a second that when gays later then pushed to put civil unions on the level of marriage (due to the difference in rights) the same people against gay marriage wouldn't have pushed to keep that from happening too.
Then you base a lot of your opinion on assumption and not facts. If you were so inclined and keeping up on this issue, you would have noticed that the surveys on the opinions between civil unions and gay marriage differed greatly. That is, in these assessments, a large percentage of people were accepting of the prospect of a civil union in equal rights than they were of a definitional adjustment of marriage.
Some even too it as far as to say that they would have liked to have seen it a general amendment to accept a contractual agreement between two people with no assessment of sexual relation so that regardless of sexual preference people could then share responsibilities if they chose to do so.
I am one of those people. I think marriage is a historical relationship that denotes a blood line linage between a male and female, that changing the definition serves only the purpose to appeal to a social demand, not a logical one.
I support the choice of those to apply civil unions in their relationship to the full extent of that exhibited by that of a traditional definition of marriage. In fact, I even suggest that "marriage" as we know it should not be something to which a government acknowledges in this day and age and should be strictly that of a contractual relationship between two people in order to preserve the legal responsibilities between those parties.
I think if the homosexual movement was truly in search of "rights", it would be logically approached to search for that legal equivalent rather than focus on socially derived standards of acceptance to which the redefinition of marriage sought. Had they done so, I know being of the position who is strongly against homosexuality as a concept that it would have been accepted far more than the approach that was.
Then you base a lot of your opinion on assumption and not facts. If you were so inclined and keeping up on this issue, you would have noticed that the surveys on the opinions between civil unions and gay marriage differed greatly. That is, in these assessments, a large percentage of people were accepting of the prospect of a civil union in equal rights than they were of a definitional adjustment of marriage.
Some even too it as far as to say that they would have liked to have seen it a general amendment to accept a contractual agreement between two people with no assessment of sexual relation so that regardless of sexual preference people could then share responsibilities if they chose to do so.
I am one of those people. I think marriage is a historical relationship that denotes a blood line linage between a male and female, that changing the definition serves only the purpose to appeal to a social demand, not a logical one.
I support the choice of those to apply civil unions in their relationship to the full extent of that exhibited by that of a traditional definition of marriage. In fact, I even suggest that "marriage" as we know it should not be something to which a government acknowledges in this day and age and should be strictly that of a contractual relationship between two people in order to preserve the legal responsibilities between those parties.
I think if the homosexual movement was truly in search of "rights", it would be logically approached to search for that legal equivalent rather than focus on socially derived standards of acceptance to which the redefinition of marriage sought. Had they done so, I know being of the position who is strongly against homosexuality as a concept that it would have been accepted far more than the approach that was.
I understand what you are saying......but, don't you think that the whole premise of marriage has been sullied to the point of meaninglessness in todays society? Couples living together for years and sometimes having children yet still having the big white wedding or couples meet/marry/have children/divorce/repeat, I mean.....the holiness of a wedding is just no longer in play. And we only have the heterosexuals to blame for that.
So, I guess I am just befuddled at just what it is people think they are saving by not allowing gays to marry?
Regardless of my religious and personal feelings on this issue...to give people the right to marry and then snatch it back from them is just RUDE in my opinion. Don't be telling people they can and then flake out about it.
I agree the gays should just settle for eqaul unions;they are stepping on too me toes here.Kind oif too in your face type thinking IMO.
How? Why should homosexuals have seperate but equal laws? What the hell is the harm of a homosexual marriage? They are simply asking for the right to marry. They will enter into your bedroom and wreck your marriage. Is marriage even sacred? I mean the majority of all marriages end in divorce. Plus, when were you ever taught about marriage in schools? Never. My dad was a teacher, my parent's friends are teachers, my best friend's mom is a teacher. I'm surrounded by teachers. They all agreed that people were misinformed about their children's education. It's a shame. California had a chance.
Then you base a lot of your opinion on assumption and not facts. If you were so inclined and keeping up on this issue, you would have noticed that the surveys on the opinions between civil unions and gay marriage differed greatly. That is, in these assessments, a large percentage of people were accepting of the prospect of a civil union in equal rights than they were of a definitional adjustment of marriage.
Some even too it as far as to say that they would have liked to have seen it a general amendment to accept a contractual agreement between two people with no assessment of sexual relation so that regardless of sexual preference people could then share responsibilities if they chose to do so.
I am one of those people. I think marriage is a historical relationship that denotes a blood line linage between a male and female, that changing the definition serves only the purpose to appeal to a social demand, not a logical one.
I support the choice of those to apply civil unions in their relationship to the full extent of that exhibited by that of a traditional definition of marriage. In fact, I even suggest that "marriage" as we know it should not be something to which a government acknowledges in this day and age and should be strictly that of a contractual relationship between two people in order to preserve the legal responsibilities between those parties.
I think if the homosexual movement was truly in search of "rights", it would be logically approached to search for that legal equivalent rather than focus on socially derived standards of acceptance to which the redefinition of marriage sought. Had they done so, I know being of the position who is strongly against homosexuality as a concept that it would have been accepted far more than the approach that was.
If I were so inclined and kept up on the issue? If I weren't sitting down I'd fall over. Trust me, unless you read gay news sites daily I am probably a lot more read on the issues than you - no offense intended.
In the majority of cases of the polls you site the people were asked the questions as if they were an if then proposition. Are you against gay marriage followed by the question of civil unions. Civil unions in their way have become the PC stance. You (general you) get to be against gay marriage but then get to say hey I have no problem with gays, just their use of marriage because I'm happy to give them civil unions. That is my unPC opinion of course.
And again in all the cases that have been presented to people as options, they do not give gay people the same rights as straights. Not civil unions and certainly not contracts.
Obviously the exception to all this are those that would like to see marriages, or the definition of them and their application as they apply now, done away with completely. What do you see as the legal equivalent to marriage may I ask? What is on the books, atm, that is the legal equivalent? If there is nothing do you advocate gays pushing to create such a thing or would you agree that by doing so another percentage of the population would become hostile about the gay agenda wanting special rights?
I love how the people who wanted Prop 8 to begin with spent millions of dollars to raise support for this issue when there are bigger fish to fry in the state of California! Has anyone there checked out the housing market lately??? Ridiculous!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
