crono, my wife and i share exactly the same views on homosexuality, everything i type, she agrees with.

we are very committed to our beliefs as well, to the point that if one of our sons came out today, he would not be our son tomorrow.. its that serious a breach of etiquette.. we would not try to discourage them from it, it is afterall a free country, but choices come with prices, and that the price in our family.

i hope that clears it up for you, as i said, its not religiously based, i have been married since 1981, and will not share that commitment with gays.

crono, its a principal, not a protest..

and jeff.. as bogoted as i seem to be, i am just to fagged (pun definitely intended) to argue about it any longer..

you are my friend, but no where does that mean you must share my views, as flawed as they are.

nite/nite all

btw, its a shame you were not here today.. you peaked my interest jeff..

[edit] jeff, did you notice, that even tho many disagree'd with my reasoning, many still said they disagreed with married gays, yet you only quoted me.. does that mean you also disagree with same sex marrage, but for their reasons and not mine?

again, nite/nite

jeff time and again, i have been counseled to ONLY post my views as opinions, now you condemn me cause i listen??

thats not entirely fair.. if i posted my views as factual, then you might have a case, but either i am allowed to voice my opinion as such, or not.. now which is it? or should we poll it to appease the gods?

i wont argue the point of gays, but i will defend myself from hypocrites who discount my beliefs.

*gives ben a cookie*

you want center stage.. you have it.. but your previous post, the one between the two stupid ones, wasn't particularly monumental.. you might practice a bit

ok jeff i read all that, and i must say, you managed to once again mix quotes, but thats ok, everyone does..

also the 2 questions seem unclear but i will answer what i felt was asked.

working under the pretense that gay is a taught thing, cause thats exactly how i view it.

1) if my grandson came out, he would indeed fall into the disowned category, that is not my choice, that is how it is. if you think like i do, then it makes sense, he would know up front, and non-negotiable the terms of his decision. again its not up for debate from members of the snarkpit, its how it is in this home. my wife and i are in agreement, and since we are the ones having to pay the price, i feel it is our decision alone, not yours.

2) respect for fellow what? who gives a rats ass about fellow man crap. i base my likes and dislikes on my own criteria, they are also not up for debate by the pit..

i am sure that something in your life has meaning to you, but to no one else save you, so how is it different when i, or anyone else has them?

if these answers are not satisfactory, tuff, its as good as they get. seems to me, my rights to have absurd viewpoints come in a distant second to anything here sometimes

my views are not required learning jeff, accept them at face value and you will sleep better.. its not as if i am out to recruit members to my cause, in fact its quite the contrary, if i detected or was told i did so, then it would be different... corrupting young minds is no more my task than gays teaching the next generation of gays.

see you are still setting yourself up as MY judge, which is the same thing you are accusing me of.

i find it very difficult to accept, or to take people seriously, when they do the very same thing they are condemning me of.

my viewpoint is not up for debate, we are not discussing Orph getting married.

people know in advance, if you rob a bank and are caught, you go to jail, its not the same ,cause many believe homosexuality is NOT a crime, thats fine, but I DO, i do not have to justify it, i don't even have to defend it, people have had far more absurd beliefs without doing so.

listen close guys, you are making this go poorly, i could spout narrow views of your views of me, but thats wrong, and i refuse to stoop to such tactics.

my family KNOWS the price extracted for coming out, if it were to happen, so would the results, screw any other viewpoint cause they hold no value in my home, where guess what, I AM LORD.

now dammit, who needs to step back here? sure isn't me cause i have as of yet, committed no wrongs, there are no gays in my family, and by all i hold dear , i intend for it to remain so, in spite of public opinion, my word is law around here. (in my home)

andrew, all i can hope is, you do not have to face decisions that have no winners, cause you will screw it up with thinking like you currently have. sometimes, there are no winners, but choices still have to be made, i just like contingency plans. ones everyone are aware of. i would regret my decision all my life, but i would still do it.

my advice to both andrew and jeff, don't back me into a corner, cause as wrong as they are, i have my convictions, and will defend them. even if it cost me everyone here to do so. think about it, if i would judge my own kin so harshly, how do you think you would fair?

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever your drive to insult each other may be, debate is impossible without respect. Let's keep that up here, shall we?

Here's how it is: homosexuality, while accepted and even promoted in American pop culture, is disdained by the American public. The fact that we have voted time and time again for our officials and measures that put down gay marriage proves that the subject is at odd with flat-out democracy.

However, I look at it this way: if you held a vote for all the American people of if they wanted to pay taxes or not, what do you think they would go for? Democracy, while it is the most functional large-scale political system, gives its people the freedom to be wrong.

But we can't control that, and we shouldn't try to; Newsom, elected himself by democratic procedure, should not cut straight through that in order to make himself more liked.

I see it like this: if it is truly good and right that homosexuals get married, we as a nation will eventually realize this, and do so on a wider scale than from pockets of very outspoken but very few defenders. Until then, do not try to rush the people, do not try to rush the law.

And I say again: the idea of 'thoughts that are incorrect to have' sickens me. Actions that hurt people are wrong, but words and thoughts cannot be evil. This of course means that I would not embark on these crusades you all seem to relish in participating in against Orph, damning his anti-gay views with every last politically correct term in the book. While Orph shouldn't be going out of his way to insult all homosexuals either, if he is indeed the head of his household, the decisions he makes with his own children are his to make.

Realize this: a world that is all-accepting is just as bad as a world that is super-prejudiced, because both are ideas of perfection through same-ness. Both sides here are promoting their way of thinking as the 'best', and you'll excuse me if I don't quite believe such a thing exists.