pajarito

And we come full circle back to the crux of the argument. Please give one single example of how gays being married will have any effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. Because the standard or definition for what marriage is in the first place and at its basis will have been lost. If you have a contract and the wording is later changed, it is not the same contract. If the wording in that contract is open ended and allows whatever union you prefer (gay, multiple, sister, dog, tree), then where's the standard? Where's the substance? It's not worth nearly what it was.

No kidding. And how about when they teach about retardation. Why should that be shoved in their faces. Next thing you know, they'll treat retards like they are human beings, too. [/sarcasm] Man, that's some of the most biggoted shit out there. Gays are people that exist. Ignoring that fact leads to one result. Misunderstanding. People fear what they don't understand and hate what they fear. I'll bet $20 you weren't taught about gays in school. That's why you have this bias against them. I have no problem with teaching what homosexuality is given that it's taught to persons old enough and developed enough to understand and who capable of handling emotional issues of that level. However, I have a problem if it's taught as being normal and healthy just like heterosexuality.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I think you understand what I'm trying to say. You're just stabbing at it (no pun intended ).

Huh? Show me where a species has gone extinct because of homosexuality? I want to be very clear especially with you since you’ve expressed your sexual preference. I do not dislike or hate people based on that. I may not agree with the behavior but that doesn’t affect how I feel about you as a person. I don’t want to come across as a homophobe because I’m not. Just don’t want hard feelings to come from my posts that you might have gotten from previous ones. Now, in reference to your post, that’s not what I said. As a matter of fact, I said in one of my prior posts that it wouldn’t affect the survival of a species. I also said that same sex marriage wouldn’t affect my marriage in the slightest. The point I was trying to make is that, if there’s going to be a standard for “marriage”, it aught to be “primarily” based on what works at the most basic level in regards to reproduction. That is, if the whole religious argument isn’t going to be used with God being placed at the head of the marriage. Not everyone holds to that and that’s not what I’m arguing here. I was also referring to a breakdown of the fundamental marriage institution. Not the species. Marriage is the most basic organization for a healthy society.

Yeah, but if you do it, it'll be polite and well-thought-out (though misguided ). It's Friday -- much better if it turns into a knuckle-dragging rumble

That's simply one justification. The most basic one in my opinion. You could stick your penis (well, not you actually ) in a hole in a tree. That doesn't mean that it's suitable to marry.

I'll bet I could work abortion or gay marriage in here somewhere!

Not properly, though. You're not really going to argue with me that a penis wasn't designed specifically to go into a vagina to produce a result?

It is a very basic standard for success, however. Round peg must go in round hole. Square peg will not go in round hole. Round peg will not go in square hole. I think God (or nature, if you prefer) was trying to tell us something. By the way, in the high altitude oxygen/pressure chamber, IT IS A BITCH, to maintain that standard at 35,000ft with that kids game.

Right. Mine was poorly worded.

I like you guys even though you're liberal as the day is long.

So am I.... ...............now...

What part of that do you think I don't know? If you're referring to their accepted homosexual practice, I am aware. So did the British and others I would assume. However, I doubt that was their standard for recognized marriage. I admit that I could be wrong. You lawyer or lawyer student types many times have history backgrounds. Let me know if I'm mistaken. I can take it. Exceptions. They're still male + female.

Gotta break the chain. Hurting my eyes! Saw your edit. Thanks!

Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** I don't think it's prudent to base your standard on an exception.

You’re right. You’re family will probably survive just fine regardless. Mine too. What a homosexual couple does in their relationship has no effect on me or anyone else and is none of my business or anyone else’s. That has nothing to do with marriage, however. If half of heterosexual marriages don’t last, should we punch holes in the foundational standard? Since many don’t take marriage seriously anyway, should we eliminate the institution altogether? Should we continue to blur the lines of the definition until it becomes unrecognizable to anyone other than the person, couple, or multiple couples who are in it? Will the standard then rest on whatever each person wants their particular standard to be? There are always exceptions. I would prefer a child be with someone who will love and take care of him/her rather than them living in an abusive situation or starving to death on the street for instance. However, that should not be preferred nor should it be the standard. The healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is in a family consisting of a married heterosexual man & woman.

Uhu...uhu...uhu.... Did I mention above that I love quiche?

Correct. But you must meet the criteria for being classified as a small business before you can recieve the benefits. That's not discrimination. You went back to saying that "homosexuals do NOT have that choice." You've got to be more specific. Choice to be homosexual or choice to express the homosexuality. We talked about that before. You may not agree. That's ok. I'm just saying, regardless of whether they were born that way or learned it, they absolutely make the choice to act on it.

Man + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Whatever the racism of the past, this is a pretty basic concept. People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the institution of marriage.

I agree.

The government promotes and gives benefits to other institutions that are healthy for society (i.e. tax advantages for small business). Not just married couples. That’s not discrimination.

A union between a man & woman who are white, black, brown, red, yellow or whatever is still a marriage. Otherwise, it simply is not. A homosexual couple may in fact be very committed to each other. No problem there. However, their union is not a marriage.

And we absolutely do. Nothing deters one from entering into a homosexual relationship. They freely decide everything about their own sexuality. However, marriage is a union between a man & woman. At its root, reproduction occurs between a man & woman. It does not occur between a man & man or woman & woman. I’m saying that it is a possibility that it may in fact not be a choice to be homosexual. It is also a possibility in some cases that homosexual tendencies may be learned from one’s environment. I don’t think that’s been proven or established yet. It doesn’t matter either way with regard to my argument, however, that it is a choice whether one acts or does not act on those tendencies. Some people say that they express their homosexuality in different ways because they have no choice and they were born that way. They may have in fact been born that way but they always have a choice.

This can be argued from a completely secular standpoint. That's why I started all this without reference to religion.

You're right. The species will survive, however, the family unit may not. Once the lines are blurred enough, there really shouldn't be any need for marriage at all. The result will be a lack of overall committment. The environment best suited for raising children (heterosexual marriage between man & woman) will be lost. Breakdown in the family will occur. It simply will not be taken as seriously. I know you can site exceptions. We've been through all this before. Overall, however, I think it is a dangerous thing to promote in the form of marriage.