How is oral sex degrading? I have no problem screwing a girl in the ass, most guys are probably with me there, I don't think that makes me gay. Do you have sex with your wife through a sheet like the Hasidic Jews or something?

 

As for the issue of same sex marriage: as a conservative, I don't really care either way. I think it is a state issue really, I think forcing the populace of a place like say, Alabama or Georgia into accepting gay marriage is too much. Though, you could say that about segregation too, so maybe it SHOULD be a federal issue. This issue really doesn't tug at my cold, steely Republican heart.

 

I think leaving it to the states is the best shot for gay couples as America as a whole hates fags.

How is oral sex degrading? I have no problem screwing a girl in the ass, most guys are probably with me there, I don't think that makes me gay. Do you have sex with your wife through a sheet like the Hasidic Jews or something?

 

As for the issue of same sex marriage: as a conservative, I don't really care either way. I think it is a state issue really, I think forcing the populace of a place like say, Alabama or Georgia into accepting gay marriage is too much. Though, you could say that about segregation too, so maybe it SHOULD be a federal issue. This issue really doesn't tug at my cold, steely Republican heart.

 

I think leaving it to the states is the best shot for gay couples as America as a whole hates fags.

 

 

America as a whole hated blacks at once...does that make it right?

 

America as a whole refused to allow women equal access in places such as the polling places...does that make it right?

 

Just because America hates something, doesnt mean it should be allowed to continue in any way, shape or form.

Oral sex is degrading. Honestly, anything going into someone's pooper disgusts me GREATLY. If you are a straight guy and you aren't on the verge of puking while thinking about it, you should leave your girlfriend because you are living a lie.

 

 

So, if you have anal sex with a woman, then you're gay? Hurm. Well, then there's a lot of gay parents out there that don't know it yet. Even though I'm not the biggest fan, it's not something I'd do all the time, but when you want to liven things up a bit, that'll do the trick. Don't try and make sex between a man and a woman on any level homosexual sex.

 

Especially since it's been documented elsewhere that gay men generally just don't want to sleep with women period and getting them to do so, if they're married to a woman, is a really hard and ultimately unenjoyable process.

 

Oral sex is NOT, I repeat, NOT degrading. Any woman who is a cunning oralist probably holds the power over my decisions. "Wait a second, hold on! No oral sex? I'm going to have to think about changing my stance, here." What about oral sex when a man does it to a woman? You probably think that's degrading, too, right?

 

This isn't an insult, but maybe you're a virgin and that explains it?

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

 

Wrong.

 

Historically, marriage has not been a religious institution, but rather a contract, more like a business contract. Why do you think the Ketubah is written the way it is, in contract form?

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

 

Wrong.

 

Historically, marriage has not been a religious institution, but rather a contract, more like a business contract. Why do you think the Ketubah is written the way it is, in contract form?

 

That and it affects taxes, insurance, etc.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

 

Wrong.

 

Historically, marriage has not been a religious institution, but rather a contract, more like a business contract. Why do you think the Ketubah is written the way it is, in contract form?

 

But see, you gave a religious instance. Religions have their own ways of handling marriages, and therefore the religions (and sects thereof) should decide whether to allow or disallow homosexual marriage.

How is oral sex degrading? I have no problem screwing a girl in the ass, most guys are probably with me there, I don't think that makes me gay. Do you have sex with your wife through a sheet like the Hasidic Jews or something?

 

As for the issue of same sex marriage: as a conservative, I don't really care either way. I think it is a state issue really, I think forcing the populace of a place like say, Alabama or Georgia into accepting gay marriage is too much. Though, you could say that about segregation too, so maybe it SHOULD be a federal issue. This issue really doesn't tug at my cold, steely Republican heart.

 

I think leaving it to the states is the best shot for gay couples as America as a whole hates fags.

 

 

America as a whole hated blacks at once...does that make it right?

 

America as a whole refused to allow women equal access in places such as the polling places...does that make it right?

 

Just because America hates something, doesnt mean it should be allowed to continue in any way, shape or form.

 

At this point, outside of few major cosmopolitan cities gay marriage has very little support even in blue states, I think it is still in the advocacy stage. Ending slavery, segregation and enacting women's sufferage happened gradually and thoughfully, you gotta butter people up here before you enact it federally.

 

As a conservative who supports civil unions for gays that is how I would do it. Maybe it is too slow for liberals and moderate Dems, I don't know. All I know is you can't rush it now because it has NO traction outside of NYC, parts of Cali, Hawaii, Vermont, and some other places in the Northeast.

Its odd that despite the UK being officially a Christian kingdom there was seemingly little made about it in comparison to that of the US and California. Tony Blair is a practicing Catholic, however it is not his own religion which determines policy, something that I find most bizarre about US politics. Surely as a secular state, religion has no influence on marriage, or at least shouldn't and as far as I am aware marriage is not a religious act when carried out exclusively by the state (government) (marriage in a religious ceremony is split into the two the official and the religious). Therefore given the benefits afforded to married couples it is clearly unfair to not allow gay marriage.

Its odd that despite the UK being officially a Christian kingdom there was seemingly little made about it in comparison to that of the US and California. Tony Blair is a practicing Catholic, however it is not his own religion which determines policy, something that I find most bizarre about US politics. Surely as a secular state, religion has no influence on marriage, or at least shouldn't and as far as I am aware marriage is not a religious act when carried out exclusively by the state (government) (marriage in a religious ceremony is split into the two the official and the religious). Therefore given the benefits afforded to married couples it is clearly unfair to not allow gay marriage.

 

 

Well since the government can't just make the argument that "hey, a christian or catholic religion wouldn't allow gays to marry so we can't make it legal", instead they wrap it up in this noble patriotic movement of "Defending Marriage".

 

I love the argument that it's because they want to "protect the sanctity" of marriage. See it's not because they don't want gays to marry, it's because they're defending everyone else. How noble. Straight couples have done a fine job of sending the divorce rate through the roof without any help whatsoever from those heathen homos.

 

Also there's the lovely argument that allowing gays to marry would open the door for all your sicko neighbors to start marrying 4 and 5 people at a time, and especially marrying animals which is a concern that I'm sure ranks right up there with terrorism and the economy.

 

I don't disagree with Marlin Nation actually that doing this gradually might be a good thing.

 

...and Cambridge there's a lot of people also that would accept something similar to marriage that afforded benefits to gay couples, as long as it's called something else.

Cambridge hits the nail on the head and thats why in many ways we are stuck in some prior century.

 

While we preach tolerance of others based on skin color which works sometimes, we are in many other ways a very intolerant nation, call it hypocritical in many ways.

 

I mean you basically have so many people harping on marriage as this great religious institution when its also a big civil institution also, i mean if its so religious then why can it be done in a court room? why can it be done on a drive thru basis in vegas. Its all about their intolerance of homosexuals and their unwillingness to allow them into their 'circle' period.

Its odd that despite the UK being officially a Christian kingdom there was seemingly little made about it in comparison to that of the US and California. Tony Blair is a practicing Catholic, however it is not his own religion which determines policy, something that I find most bizarre about US politics. Surely as a secular state, religion has no influence on marriage, or at least shouldn't and as far as I am aware marriage is not a religious act when carried out exclusively by the state (government) (marriage in a religious ceremony is split into the two the official and the religious). Therefore given the benefits afforded to married couples it is clearly unfair to not allow gay marriage.

 

 

Yes.

 

And yet our president claims to make decisions every day based on his faith forgetting that whole bit about seperation of church and state. The argument is, if someone has faith, how can you seperate faith from the person if they really believe it? I mean, if you believe everything is based on that faith and stems from it, then don't your decisions?

 

For some reason it's harder for American politicians to put that aside and act as a neutral agents in their policy, acting for the benefit of the people. Also, and this brings up another point, they're going to claim this is what people want and they are acting in their best interests. And there IS a sect of people who voted on Bush purely because he is a Christian and acts from faith.

 

I believe it was "Moneybanks" Rod Parsley, a television preacher whose show originates from down the block, who said, "And remember, when you're all alone in that voting booth that the ALMIGHTY has HIS eye on you!!!"

...and Cambridge there's a lot of people also that would accept something similar to marriage that afforded benefits to gay couples, as long as it's called something else.

 

After searching for more information on the matter, it would appear that is exactly as has been done in Britain :thumbup , the good old BBC website has a Q&A session about the extents and requirements of the 'Civil Partnership' as it is being termed. As you will see marriage was not used to ease the bill through and reduce friction with religious groups.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4497348.stm

Civil Unions are an acceptable alternative in my opinion , I personally am opposed to gay marriage but if a STATE wants to legalize it than so be it I am not going to lose any sleep over it. All of these hot button social issues should be voted on by the people and not imposed on the population by judges. Democratic debate is healthy and I bet if the "abortion issue" was settled at the state level it wouldnt be an issue for most people and we wouldnt have to deal with nuts on the right and left.

Civil Unions are an acceptable alternative in my opinion , I personally am opposed to gay marriage but if a STATE wants to legalize it than so be it I am not going to lose any sleep over it. All of these hot button social issues should be voted on by the people and not imposed on the population by judges. Democratic debate is healthy and I bet if the "abortion issue" was settled at the state level it wouldnt be an issue for most people and we wouldnt have to deal with nuts on the right and left.

 

 

no they shouldnt. they should simply be declared as legal based on amendement one of the United States Constitution. If left up to the people slavery would still be legal, blacks definitely wouldnt be voting and women sure as hell wouldnt be voting.

 

Thanks.

Civil Unions are an acceptable alternative in my opinion , I personally am opposed to gay marriage but if a STATE wants to legalize it than so be it I am not going to lose any sleep over it. All of these hot button social issues should be voted on by the people and not imposed on the population by judges. Democratic debate is healthy and I bet if the "abortion issue" was settled at the state level it wouldnt be an issue for most people and we wouldnt have to deal with nuts on the right and left.

 

 

no they shouldnt. they should simply be declared as legal based on amendement one of the United States Constitution. If left up to the people slavery would still be legal, blacks definitely wouldnt be voting and women sure as hell wouldnt be voting.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Um no I cant say I agree with your thinking , without the benefit of reading all your posts and this whole debate I am going to assume that you are basing your argument on freedom from an established religion. If your saying marriage as it has been know and established for thousands of years is the establishment of religion than ALL marriage should be illegal. If you are saying that marriage is a secular institution and more of a social contract than most social contracts are governed by state laws .

 

Second I also disagree with you on slavery . Way before the civil war anti-slavery movements existed , and while the south was clinging to slavery as a form of labor economic modernization would made slave labor unnecessary and slavery would have died out eventually like it did in most South American countries. We may disagree on this but I believe sooner or later the people of America ultimately get it right .

 

If you support gay marriage that is your choice I respect your opinion I just dont agree with it.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

 

 

You know, Das, the amazing thing about talking to people about homosexuals is that they just don't get. You can talk until you're blue in the face and ultimately it's like trying to get out of a circular room with no doors.

 

They don't seem to get the argument you lay out. Ever.

 

Marriage is no longer a religious institution. Period. Atheists do it, Agnostics do it. Hell, Wiccans do it. Anyone can be married but two people of the same sex. We're telling them that they don't have the same rights as everyone else. To a some extent it is the same as racism or sexism.

 

"I don't agree with it."

 

Heh. Well, the question I would ask, is why you care? It's not like they're having gay sex in the street. Just because you don't agree with something, which is a matter of TASTE and not the law, doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. I don't agree with people getting drunk and driving their cars, but it's reality ain't it? There are gays, this is a fact. They don't have the same rights as you and me. That seems wrong and to go against the foundation of this country as laid down by our slave owning forefathers.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

 

 

 

Sorry I dont agree with your thinking , most African American civil rights leaders would be highly offended with the comparison even Jesse Jackson said it is not the same. The problem with your comparision is MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT No where is it guaranteed that everyone has the RIGHT to be married. In terms of benefits that is something to take up with the state or companies, there are many states and companies that offer same sex couples benefits that is their choice just as it is their choice to offer them to married couples. A benefit is not a guaranteed freedom , some companies and states dont offer benefits to married couples , or offer benefits to childless couples. Discrimination in terms of benefits happens all the time. For example, lets say I am just starting work I dont get as many vacation days as a guy who has been with the company for 25 years and we do the same job , in theory they are practicing discrimination because of my youth . Respectfully I think redefining social institutions that have been established for 1000's of years suggests that social order is crumbling.

 

 

 

Marriage is not a right

You can talk until you're blue in the face and ultimately it's like trying to get out of a circular room with no doors.

 

Pretty good way to describe it. I've had conversation with two people who oppose gay marriage, one of whom opposes gay people in general.

 

It went like this:

 

1.Why do you oppose gay marriage?

2. Its value, you have to respect values.

1. *numerous counterarguments*

2. I don't know its just values.

 

or

 

1. Who do you oppose gay people?

2. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

1. *numerous counterarguments*

2. I dont know, they just make me feel uncomfortable.

It is amazing the amount of arrogance people on this forum show if you do not agree with them.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

 

 

 

Sorry I dont agree with your thinking , most African American civil rights leaders would be highly offended with the comparison even Jesse Jackson said it is not the same. The problem with your comparision is MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT No where is it guaranteed that everyone has the RIGHT to be married. In terms of benefits that is something to take up with the state or companies, there are many states and companies that offer same sex couples benefits that is their choice just as it is their choice to offer them to married couples. A benefit is not a guaranteed freedom , some companies and states dont offer benefits to married couples , or offer benefits to childless couples. Discrimination in terms of benefits happens all the time. For example, lets say I am just starting work I dont get as many vacation days as a guy who has been with the company for 25 years and we do the same job , in theory they are practicing discrimination because of my youth . Respectfully I think redefining social institutions that have been established for 1000's of years suggests that social order is crumbling.

 

 

 

Marriage is not a right

 

Marriage IS A RIGHT. It's done in courthouses. Period.

 

If our government can make it legal, it's a right we have. NEXT.

 

I never heard one argument that rang true as to why religion even matters in marriage in the current secular society we live in. A lot of people get religious marriage ceremonies, a lot of others don't. Both are afforded the same status in the end.

 

Marriage is, by law, a right that affords a different status to two people who join into a union. They get different tax breaks and are recognized by the U.S. government for their union. And all social institutions change. Don't give me that. If you're afraid of change go live in a hole.

 

Didn't Christianity just spring from Judaism? Or are Jews just backwards Christians too afraid to pop their head out of their hole because they're "afraid of change." Institutions, especially unjust and backwards ones, change.

 

Besides, homosexuality has been around longer than marriage so it should win out.

 

And I haven't resorted to ad hominem attacks, I just want one reason that rings true why homos shouldn't marry. One. I'm countering your arguments. And so far, I think I've got you.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

 

 

 

Sorry I dont agree with your thinking , most African American civil rights leaders would be highly offended with the comparison even Jesse Jackson said it is not the same. The problem with your comparision is MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT No where is it guaranteed that everyone has the RIGHT to be married. In terms of benefits that is something to take up with the state or companies, there are many states and companies that offer same sex couples benefits that is their choice just as it is their choice to offer them to married couples. A benefit is not a guaranteed freedom , some companies and states dont offer benefits to married couples , or offer benefits to childless couples. Discrimination in terms of benefits happens all the time. For example, lets say I am just starting work I dont get as many vacation days as a guy who has been with the company for 25 years and we do the same job , in theory they are practicing discrimination because of my youth . Respectfully I think redefining social institutions that have been established for 1000's of years suggests that social order is crumbling.

 

 

 

Marriage is not a right

1. Your argument is a defense of bigotry. A state that says we will not allow blacks and whites to marry or blacks to marry could say the same thing. Sorry, marriage is not a right, so we can be racist.

 

2. A conservative using Jesse Jackson for backup? Just because black civil leaders dont like the comparison, doesnt make them per se correct. Im sure you wouldnt adopt their numerous other beliefs too right? Sounds they are only good when they agree with you.

 

3. Your discrimination in terms of age benefits is a bad argument. Of course discrimination happens everyday. But it happens for a valid and justified reason. In the benefits case, the state rewards seniority, which is a valid reason. But there is no valid and justified reason to discriminate against gays. Which segways into a little concept called the equal protection clause of the constitution.

 

Moreover:

Respectfully I think redefining social institutions that have been established for 1000's of years suggests that social order is crumbling

 

Gotta love this one. Ok with these too?

 

-Slavery was around for thousands of years, so keep it around lest social order starts crumbling.

-Severe oppression of women in Islamnic culture has been around for thousands of years, so keep it around lest social order starts crumbling.

-Women as male property right has been around for 1000s of years, so keep it around lest social order starts crumbling.

 

People who hates gays can present a valid reason to do so, so they pull out the "I dont want my comfortable world way I can hate gays to change" argument. You know the funny thing? This was the EXACT argument given by souther bigots to violently oppose integration. Its how it is. Dont change our precious social order.

not supporting gay marriage is tantamount to not agreeing with the civil rights movement and the women's movement.

 

 

basically in those cases you are denying one from the freedoms allowed in amendment one based on skin color.

 

by saying that gays cannot marry and therefore receive all the legal benefits of a marriage that a straight couple receives then you are denying one those freedoms based on sexual orientation.

 

we might as well rip up the bill of rights and live in anarchy.

 

 

 

Sorry I dont agree with your thinking , most African American civil rights leaders would be highly offended with the comparison even Jesse Jackson said it is not the same. The problem with your comparision is MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT No where is it guaranteed that everyone has the RIGHT to be married. In terms of benefits that is something to take up with the state or companies, there are many states and companies that offer same sex couples benefits that is their choice just as it is their choice to offer them to married couples. A benefit is not a guaranteed freedom , some companies and states dont offer benefits to married couples , or offer benefits to childless couples. Discrimination in terms of benefits happens all the time. For example, lets say I am just starting work I dont get as many vacation days as a guy who has been with the company for 25 years and we do the same job , in theory they are practicing discrimination because of my youth . Respectfully I think redefining social institutions that have been established for 1000's of years suggests that social order is crumbling.

 

 

 

Marriage is not a right

 

When marriage started to be done with judges and when this nation started giving benefits to married couples with their annual tax filings it ceased to be a wholly religious thing and a right that is afforded straight people.

 

You have to put aside your personal beliefs when you are dealing with a society such as ours founded on the beliefs ours is founded on.

 

Denying marriage to gays is taking away a right they have within the government structure set up. Either allow all or allow none. That's the only 'true' solution.

It is amazing the amount of arrogance people on this forum show if you do not agree with them.

 

 

Arrogance to you=demanding rational basis for a view.

The thought police is out in full force , I will address only Buckeye's point marriage is not a right , the federal government does not guarantee a right to marriage because it happens in a courthouse does not make it a right. I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to be married but are not but by raising the "courthouse"(which court house?) you play right into my point about marriage being a states right issue. Marriage requires different criteria to be met in different states. For example is some states you have to be 18, have a blood test, while in other states you can be 16 and have no blood test. States have always regulated marriage and the only time when the federal government has gotten involved in marriage is to restrict the defintion of marriage was in Utah in the late 1800's . Rights are are defined in the constitution and bill of right please tell me exactly where is the RIGHT to marry ...thanks in advance