\"\"Closer than we were yesterday, I guess. And no g

Just a question - how has that ""Gay Marriage"" thing worked out for the countries that allow it? Has their society crumbled already?

I remember reading that Amsterdam and ... Germany? allowed it in the past few years, but I''ve not seen any followups on that.

They''re now bastions of demonology. An expected smiting is pending, and many suggest that soon Amsetdam will be turned to salt or possibly limestone.

Yup, we''ve already built a wall around that sodom and gomhorra infested hellhole. Really though realcydan, including gay marriages wouldn''t make a exceptions, it would rather expand the law beyond the scope it was intended for. Surely the 1-2% of the population you are talking about should have the ability to be married eh?

Just wanted to post an interesting article that I read. Now, maybe it is only interesting to me because it eloquently states my own thoughts on the matter, but it is worth a read.

The fundamental issue is whether marriage is defined as two adults deciding who they want to live with or crossing the male-female divide to give children a stable structure.

Give it a read.

Ha my view is represented too!

""Marriage is, without dispute, one of the most significant forms of personal relationships. . . . Through the institution of marriage, individuals can publicly express their love and commitment to each other. Through this institution, society publicly recognizes expressions of love and commitment between individuals, granting them respect and legitimacy as a couple.""

Leave it up to the states, I say. Don''t even bother with it on a federal level, since the federal government doesn''t grant marriage licenses.

Isn''t Dick Cheney''s daughter a lesbian?

Yeah, but she''s still single.

She hasn''t met Ben Affleck yet. Hurf hurf.

Thanks Ben! I can only give him a little credit, though. He keeps converting attractive lesbians, who have been softened up by years of men hitting on them. Let''s see Ben take on a real challenge - a butch dull-dyke that death-row inmates and nuclear sub sailors would shudder to look at. Then he''ll be the king...

One final thought on a very old topic...

We now have a population that includes many people who cannot see beyond words to the realities that those words are supposed to convey.

It is hard to for me to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.

The issue of gay marriage is just one of many examples of the victim''s ploy: ""I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me have my way, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person."" Whatever its failings as logic, this tactic has been a big success politically.

I realize that I haven''t added anything new to my previous statements, but I was feeling particularly pithy.

It is hard to for me to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.

Well if long dead Americans didn''t think it was a good idea, then we should abolish it immediately and bury it in a shallow grave. These are the last words I''ll write on this devil machine before reverting to an abacus and a slave scribe. (I can be pithy too!) While we''re getting rid of things that would''ve seemed ridiculous to former generations of Americans let''s drop civil rights, voting rights for women, voting rights for non-landowners, a forty hour work week, labor unions, and so one and so on. Further, by what scientific magic did you scry the origins of marriage, because my swift research into the matter shows a variety of opinions on why the institution was originally created. But, the most likely reason seems to be to promote a monogomous and stable relationship in which children can be raised - it''s quite easy to actually have children without marriage - and there''s nothing in that definition that excludes homosexuality.

""I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me have my way, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person.""

How in the world have you applied this logic to the desire of homosexuals to have a formalized and legal union? If you''re hearing that argument, then you''re just hearing what you want to hear. While I''ve certainly seen that argument used, and at times used by individual homosexuals, the desire to be treated equally and receive the same protections as everyone else is hardly the victim routine.

Wonderfully said, and honestly I really don''t disagree. Like I said, I was just feeling pithy.

Man am I sorry I missed this thread. Just got done with my required ""Fundamentals of Speech"" class, in which I did indeed research a persuasive speech on why gay marriages should be legalized.

First here are some links that you might find interesting/useful.

For an exhaustive list of federal (and state of MA) protections that gay couples don''t have see http://www.glad.org/Publications/Civ...

For a look (from the plaintiff side of course) at the pending case in MA Supreme Court see: http://www.glad.org/marriage/

For look at exactly similar pending case in NJ that just got started in late June, see http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/i...

Note that when similar cases were brought in AL and HI, and the supreme courts looked like they''d take the various constitutional protections and apply them simultaneously to allow same-sex marriage, the legislatures of these states passed constitutional amendments to nix that.

In VT, the supreme court was about the do the same, when it stopped itself and went to the legislature and said, basically, ""it''s your job to regulate this stuff, so we''ll give you X days to write up what you want to do."" So VT had every opportunity to write its own amendments, and instead came up with the civil union compromise.

And as you can read the problem with a ""civil union"" is that it doesn''t provide the *federal* ""benefits"" of marriage. Nor benefits in any other state. While there may be some benefits I don''t know about that aren''t meant for non-child bearing couples, things like a 2 person household where both pay taxes for 40 years, and if straight the survivor gets the greater of the two pension check amounts, while the gay couple''s survivor just gets their own...

So among the things that seem ridiculous to me are denial of same soc security benefits to couples who have been together and paid taxes for 40 years, the need to carry a power of attourney with you at all times and hope the hospital accepts it in case your partner ends up in the ER, family and medical leave act (can''t invoke it for partner of 30 years who''s got cancer...), estate taxes in case of shared business and property (again add ""and have been a couple for 30 years""), and...well you can read more of these if you want to, just check that whole pdf file listed above.

On a less legal level, I always find it damned odd that the same people who site statistics about the promiscuity of gay people as proof of their ""immorality"" are the same people who use that as part of the reason to deny gay people the right of a legal, monogamous union, on ""moral grounds."" That makes no sense.