It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Why did you decide to lie and say I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children ?

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

 

[Boss]

What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other.

So what? What the hell IS bigamy? Isn't it like "sodomy" ...something the bible-thumpers think is wrong but really doesn't hurt anyone else? ...You can't shoot your moral high horse in the head then jump back on him! This is almost hilarious if it weren't so serious.

On one hand, you argue that religious morals and values are meaningless and shouldn't be allowed to restrict homosexuals from trashing the institution of marriage and making a mockery of religious sanctity... you're cool with that.... BUT... on the other hand, you want to get all tight-butted and preach to me about what is obvious to everyone as immoral. Is your brain disconnected? Did someone name you the Pope? Where, all of a sudden, did you obtain the right to tell me what is or isn't moral or restrict my rights on that basis?

 

[Boss]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

 

[Montrovant]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia. You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.

 

[Seawytch]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

The "problem" has been solved. Anti gay bigots tried to keep non familial consenting adult gays from marrying each other. They lost and non familial consenting adult gays can marry each other...exactly like non familial consenting adult heterosexuals. That is the ONLY valid comparison.

The fight is over, the bigots lost. There is no "give" left. Nothing is going to be reversed.

 

[Faun]

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Why did you decide to lie and say I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children ?

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

Boss is fucking deranged. Boss sees no difference between two adult men engaging in consentual sex and a pedophile raping a young child.

 

[Faun]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

Reasonable people already approached the problem and resolved it. Your butthurt over the matter doesn't actually factor into the equation as you think it does. The problem is solved.

 

[Syriusly]

I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.

But you didn't explain anything other than your moral hang-up regarding maturity which you go on to admit is arbitrary and can't be measured accurately by age. I'm sorry but "we can't allow it because it's not appropriate" isn't a very good answer. A lot of people feel that way about homosexual marriage. You're not explaining why you get to pick and choose what is appropriate but others have to sit down and shut up. Are we all to defer to your moral judgement now?

Your lack of comprehension- and honesty- and morality- is not my problem.

If you cannot understand why a 4 year or a 13 year old cannot provide consent to sex or marriage- then you have bigger issues than just your disapproval of homosexuals marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

 

[Syriusly]

What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other.

So what? What the hell IS bigamy? Isn't it like "sodomy" .

I explained why. Your lack of comprehension, honesty or morals is not my problem.

 

[Skylar]

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

The mic didn't even bounce when you dropped it.

 

[Boss]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia. You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.

You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not reading what I'm talking about with an open mind. You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe and so nothing I can post can be anything other than bigoted homophobia.

All I've done is try to illustrate to you how it's a really stupid idea to put government and courts in charge of deciding what we can call marriage and also demanding they make their orders without respect to any religious morality. It's a really dumb idea to change the meaning of words so you can accommodate your sexual proclivity of choice. My point has been that this will ultimately lead to things you're very uncomfortable with but you've set the course.

 

[Boss]

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

Still not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

 

[Syriusly]

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

Still not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer. Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

 

[Boss]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

Reasonable people already approached the problem and resolved it. Your butthurt over the matter doesn't actually factor into the equation as you think it does. The problem is solved.

I know that a lot of you think this. You were all cheering and celebrating the SCOTUS ruling and you're full of hubris and confidence that you've won this war and it's now just a matter of dispatching a few 'bigots' like Kim Davis and you're set... but I don't think so. In fact, I think your real problems just began.

 

[Syriusly]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia. You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.

You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not reading what I'm talking about with an open mind. You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe .

How could anyone come to that conclusion?

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

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...

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU...

it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles.////

. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

How could anyone think you are a bigoted homophobe from those remarks?

How could anyone not come to that conclusion.

 

[Boss]

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

Still not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer. Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

Still... not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

 

[Syriusly]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

Reasonable people already approached the problem and resolved it. Your butthurt over the matter doesn't actually factor into the equation as you think it does. The problem is solved.

I know that a lot of you think this. You were all cheering and celebrating the SCOTUS ruling and you're full of hubris and confidence that you've won this war and it's now just a matter of dispatching a few 'bigots' like Kim Davis and you're set... but I don't think so. In fact, I think your real problems just began.

Despite all evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that the side who wants equal rights for Americans who happen to be gay have any NEW problems. Just the same old bigotry- just now less of it.

 

[Boss]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia. You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.

You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not reading what I'm talking about with an open mind. You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe .

How could anyone come to that conclusion?

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

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...

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU...

it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles.////

. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

How could anyone think you are a bigoted homophobe from those remarks?

How could anyone not come to that conclusion.

Hey, when I say that giving an alcoholic a drink isn't a good idea, it doesn't mean I dislike alcoholics or I'm advocating prohibition. I can understand the alchy getting pissed and offended but that's to be expected. Same deal here.

 

[Syriusly]

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer

Still not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer. Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.

Still... not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds. Can you not find that quote?

And here is what you actually said- and then lied about saying it- and you still don't have the stones to admit you just lied when you said it:

I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer