Belgian_Draft

No. But then nobody here is proposing anything like that, are they? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

"And I'm curious.... What is your actual position on same-sex marriage? Do you think it should be legal or not? (I understand that you don't think they are being discriminated against, but that's not what I'm asking here.) " Finally! Somebody who pays attention! I am not against same-sex marriages. If two people of the same sex want to get married, have at it. No skin off my back. As an aside, a couple weeks ago I was walking to lunch with a friend who is gay. A young man crossed the sidewalk in front of us. He was wearing flip-flops and black socks, very short cut-offs, and a pink t-shirt. My friend pointed him out and said, "That is soooo gay." We had a real good laugh over the irony. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

when it's such a semantics issues for those passionate about the issue on both sides, I don't see any reason to vote when you put it as marriage/civil unions much more friendly to split the terms out Yes, it would be. If my intent was to gauge whether people prefered civil unions or marriage for same sex and opposite sex couples. But that wasn't my intent. My intent was to gauge where people are willing to draw the line for society to recognize two people "as one". HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

It really isn't. It's actually very, very, very old. Wrong. As I said in my post, virtually all marriages were marriages of convenience, not love. Though some couples were in love, the marriage needed to be approved by family and community leaders who were concerned with making sure the marriage would benefit the parties involved, the families, and the community as a whole. If the couple were in love it was mostly by chance (or luck). HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Yes, it is. They're assuming ownership of a word that was never just theirs in the first place, and basing the denial of an entire set of rights to another group of people just because they don't want 'their' word to be used. It's the definition of pettiness. Nobody is assuming ownership of any word. They are fighting to keep from happening what they believe will somehow lessen the respect others have for the meaning of what a marriage is. It is not for you or I to tell them how they feel any more than it is up to them to tell gays who they have affection towards. To you it is petty. To them it is not. They outnumber you by a fair margin. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

And in this case people are being denied the right to choose their partner specifically because of gender. Exactley! So why are you and others here claiming it is because they are homosexual??It is exactly the same thing, old guy. Exactly. Everyone could marry, they just couldn't marry into a different race. Just like now, everyone can marry, they just can't marry into the same gender. It's exactly the same, old guy. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I also happen to agree with the states that have laws restricting the marriage between family members. My whole point of posting this poll was to make people contemplate where we should draw the line of who can get married to whom. I am fine with same-sex marriages, I just don't agree with the argument that they are being discriminated against. A much better argument, IMO, would be that the government is making a decision that should be left to the individual. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

A lot of people are opposed to same-sex marriages because they feel it would somehow lessen or trivialize the meaning of the partnership they or their family have enjoyed and taken pride in for many, many years. Before you make any assumptions I will tell you that I am not one of them. But for those who do feel that way I can assure you, young man, that it most definitely is not petty in any way, shape, or form. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

You forgot one very important part that changes the entire meaning of the phrase. In the 1950s blacks were not denied the right to marry, they were denied the right to marry whites. That one little word makes all the difference in context. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new. Until relatively recently virtually all marriages were for reasons of family stability, social acceptance and promotion, etc. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

What did I write that would lead you to believe that? But, since you broached the subject, what is the difference between a father marrying his daughter (as long as they don't have children) and two men getting married? In both cases the only possible harm to anyone is that some people will take offense to it. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Discrimination is treating one group of people different than another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice. We choose who to love and who we want to marry, it is not somethig that is forced upon us or that we have no say in. When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black. Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits. Nobody here has shown any law that specifically denies any person the right to marry because of their sexual orientation. Show me anywhere in the law where it says "Homosexuals are not allowed to marry" and I will agree with you 100% that they are being discriminated against. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Does that remark mean you feel family members should be allowed to marry and reproduce? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

How dare you argue with the boy? He has, after all, read all about it. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Some think they should be the same, some don't. Some think we need both, some think we should only have one. Which describes you? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

How should marriages/civil unions be restricted, if at all? Why? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

What part of heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person the WISH to marry and heterosexuals are not don't you understand. Once again you are resorting to a completely disingenuous argument to defend an undefendable position. All people are allowed to marry anyone they choose just as long as that person is of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. A heterosexual may well wish to marry someone of the same sex (why, I don't know) but they can't anymore than a gay can. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

apparently. so simple you couldn't even keep it straight. But rejoice in knowing that when the gays succeed, you will now have the right to marry a man if you ever get over your commitment issues. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once. I ONLY see it being used as a straw-man argument being made by anti-gay marriage forces. 50 years ago nobody had ever heard of gay marriage. So there. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

The reason I have not shown the difference between racial discrimination and sexual-preference discrimination is simple...there IS no sexual-preference discrimination. Neither heterosexuals nor gays are allowed, in California, to marry a person of the same sex. It's actually a very simple concept. Now, if you can show me anyplace in the marriage laws that specifically denies a person the right to marry the person of their choice based on their sexual preference, by all means post it. All the law does is define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What part of that don't you understand? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

You are wrong, he is comparing apples to apples. The apples aren’t even of different colors. If you can’t see that, it is because you are choosing not to see it. You are playing silly word games to justify discriminating against homosexuals. Tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep at night, but anyone with half a brain can see right through it. You are supporting discriminating against people because of their sexual preference. I think a lot of people would have a lot more respect for you if you just came out and said it. No, you are just as wrong as Bill. Racial discimination is a totally different subject than a ban on same-sex marriage. I suspect neither of you have ever been a victim of racial discrimination. I have. I guess you and Bill have other things in common as well. Neither of you read my posts enough to know that I am not against gays having a civil union. Bill is so ignorant of this fact that he actually thinks he changed my mind. What I am against is people thinking it is somehow treating them differently than anyone else. It isn't. NOBODY in California...white, black, red, yellow, gay, straight, deeply in love or emotionless, can marry someone of the same sex. ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY! Maybe YOU are willing to answer a part of a question i posed Bill and he ignored: Where do we draw the line? If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Yes I repeat myself: I am not opposed in any way to gays marrying each other. Though i would prefer they call it a civil union and leave the word "marriage" to man-woman unions I wouln't feel it's the end of the world if it didn't work out that way. What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights. Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Just curious... If the majority eventually decides that same-sex marriage should be allowed, will you be OK with it then? Yes, actually. I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want. I DO have issues with married people having benefits that are not afforded single people. Like I said before, do away with those benefits and this discussion of same-sex marriage dwindles to a whisper. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

All of the situations you mentioned could be easily resolved with a provision for a "civil union". Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman. Since you are in favor of same-sex marriages, you must also be in favor of brother-sister marriages, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, etc. as long as offspring are not produced. After all, the only thing "wrong" with them is the public perception, right? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I also have encountered those types. But I have encountered far more who had worked only in research, are great teachers, but haven't a clue as to how the theory applies in the real world when away from the sanitary and controlled conditions of a lab or computer. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.