It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Kobie]

I'm still waitin

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

Oh he goes beyond that- he is so terrified of gays that he predicts that gays will be trying to pass laws requiring him to have sex with him- from the OP

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Oh, I called him on that. He handwaved it away, then called me a faggot. He's a real top-notch debater.

 

[Boss]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

 

[Kobie]

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

 

[Boss]

I'm still waitin

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

Oh he goes beyond that- he is so terrified of gays that he predicts that gays will be trying to pass laws requiring him to have sex with him- from the OP

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Oh, I called him on that. He handwaved it away, then called me a faggot. He's a real top-notch debater.

You didn't "call me" on anything, asshat. You slobbered all over the board with your sentimental tripe about love and happiness. Then worked yourself into a hate-filled froth because I was being honest with you about how society will continue to treat homosexuals. You see, we can't have civil dialogue anymore... no way. You've made up your mind that I am something I'm not, based on your closed-minded bigotry. Now you want to sit back and take little cheap shots at me from the peanut gallery.

Excuse me, I need to go take a crap that I care about more than what you have to say.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

 

[Kobie]

You didn't "call me" on anything, asshat. You slobbered all over the board with your sentimental tripe about love and happiness. Then worked yourself into a hate-filled froth because I was being honest with you about how society will continue to treat homosexuals. You see, we can't have civil dialogue anymore... no way. You've made up your mind that I am something I'm not, based on your closed-minded bigotry. Now you want to sit back and take little cheap shots at me from the peanut gallery.

Excuse me, I need to go take a crap that I care about more than what you have to say.

MY closed-minded bigotry? From the guy who called me a faggot. Pardon my while I laugh my ass off at you.

"Sentimental tripe" in a thread about MARRIAGE.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

It only "counts" in such a manner by an angry minority. Their opinion on our marriages plus $3 gets 'em coffees at Starbucks.

 

[Kobie]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

 

[Boss]

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

 

[Montrovant]

Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it.

Now Boss is telling us that straight people don't engage in homosexual behavior because it is abnormal, not because they aren't attracted to their own gender.

 

[Boss]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

Actually, I used to be a strong advocate of gay marriage, in the very beginning. My opinion was changed by my close friends who are gay couple, who had a wedding in 1986 in rural Alabama. I had assumed they supported gay marriage... being they were openly gay and had a wedding. Turns out, I was wrong. Just goes to show you that we don't all fit neatly in bigoted stereotypical boxes.

They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power. Have you never considered that a SCOTUS which can rule "gay marriage" is marriage, can also rule that marriage can only be between men and women? All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past.

As for calling my representatives in government, I do that all the time. I sent an email to Jeff Sessions this morning. My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage. I'm proud of that and would like to think I had something to do with it. Eventually, I think you're going to see many states do the same thing. It's time we join the 21st century and stop allowing government to define our personal relationships.

 

[Montrovant]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Again, has nothing to do with the definition.

The definition of "union" is "to join together" as well as a couple of alternative definitions, like a type of pearl. The "meaning" of the word can vary depending on context. Definition and meaning are two different things. You seem to not be able to comprehend that.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend. In fact, we can redefine dogs and cats to mean "children" and gay couples can pretend to have all "children" they please. Does that make it the same?

Like I've said, if you want to argue same sex couples deserve tax breaks and benefit of contract in personal property matters, I have no problem with that. If you want to call their relationship a "civil union" ...again, not a problem. But marriage is the union of a male and female, and as such, there has been NO DISCRIMINATION.

Well, if you want to nit-pick......

You are using your own personal meaning of the word union. There is no definition nor rule that requires union be sexual when discussing same sex couples compared to opposite sex couples, other than in your own mind. You gave no context which would change the meaning of the word; the context was the same for opposite gender couples and same gender couples. You simply decided that the word has a different meaning for same gender couples and apparently expect others to agree for....well, no particular reason. You seem to be conflating union and marriage.

Since you seem to want to continue with the nit-picking, here, let me provide a definition of the word define : the definition of define . Note the first definition 'to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)'.

 

[Boss]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

 

[Montrovant]

My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.

Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?

 

[Kobie]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

No, society is not "swayed by polls," society is reflected in polls. Only crackpots and the utterly delusional think a reputable, scientific poll is somehow meaningless because of "PC" or some other bullshit reason.

 

[Boss]

Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it.

Now Boss is telling us that straight people don't engage in homosexual behavior because it is abnormal, not because they aren't attracted to their own gender.

I'm attracted to people of my own gender all the time. I don't even have a problem recognizing when a man is handsome or sexually attractive. I don't want to have homosexual relations with them... that's abnormal.

 

[Boss]

My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.

Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?

Except that, it did.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want. However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage. Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years. Good PR? Sure, that plays a big part. That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.

 

[Montrovant]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

Actually, I used to be a strong advocate of gay marriage, in the very beginning. My opinion was changed by my close friends who are gay couple, who had a wedding in 1986 in rural Alabama. I had assumed they supported gay marriage... being they were openly gay and had a wedding. Turns out, I was wrong. Just goes to show you that we don't all fit neatly in bigoted stereotypical boxes.

They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power. Have you never considered that a SCOTUS which can rule "gay marriage" is marriage, can also rule that marriage can only be between men and women? All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past.

As for calling my representatives in government, I do that all the time. I sent an email to Jeff Sessions this morning. My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage. I'm proud of that and would like to think I had something to do with it. Eventually, I think you're going to see many states do the same thing. It's time we join the 21st century and stop allowing government to define our personal relationships.

Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then? You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.

 

[Montrovant]

They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power.

Civil marriage, on the other hand, is.