? posted by Kage_Prototype

? quote: i would be just as committed to my wife, with or without the ceremony of marriage. gays just want, what is denied them, its a point of pride, not marriage itself.. they want to be DIFFERENT, but treated as if they were NOT. if they were truly proud of their differences, they would not be so hell bent on sameness, that IMO is the biggest crime of all. I would have throught they'd want to marry for the same reasons straight couples get married. While I accept that you may not want to change your views that gar marriage is wrong, this particular reason confuzles me. Maybe they get married for the same reason you did? I doubt all of them simply want to have it because they can't at the moment. see? discussion! yay!

*scratches buttocks,resists urge to sniff finger*

my position reflects rosy O'Donnell's <<is that spelt correctly?

she and her partner got married because bush said they could NOT, not because they should, or would otherwise.

i could have misheard this on the news, but i doubt it.

this may not be reflective of all the gay community, but it sure appears that way.

its human nature to long for what is denied you, and this will forever be denied the gay community, even if someone passes a law "allowing" gays to marry, they will still only be gays within an unaccepting world.

anywho's you, or anyone doesn't have to concur with me, my goal is never to alter ones views, but to make my position as clear as you can conceive.. if it was proven that snarkpit was indeed a community comprised of 99% gays and 1% straight, i would still be here, helping people to map.. my dim views do not alter my goals of assisting anyone who asks for help.

i, unlike many, can separate my feelings, from my objectives.

i think i have occupied center stage long enuff this morning, its someone elses turn to do so..

thanx guys, this could have went badly.

/me shuffles back to bed, this last trip took a terrible toll on my butt, being sick the whole time.

if the partner knew in advance of the sex change, then no, i would however be opposed to any hidden information like that.

plus it is my understanding that its not likely for gays to find their partner more attractive having the accepted genitalia added surgically.

most lesbians find the penis gross, as the males find the vagina.

but to answer your question, the answer would be no, if my criteria were met. it would be wrong to lie to your partner, even a gay one about such.

if given a choice, a child growing up parent-less, and in a foster-home, i would chose gays rights to adopt, but only as a very last resort, then the strictest set of circumstances available to monitor the new family for deviant traits being taught or passed on, if the family remains "normal" then fine and dandy, but if the gayisms are transfered in any way to the helpless and influential children, it would be considered child abuse and charges filed.

children should not have to grow up parent-less, if its avoidable, and many truly need good homes, and if a gay can manage for the children's sake to give the impression of normalcy, then the child would surely benefit with it..

i am not above adoption to any source, but i would consider teaching the young the "greatness" of being gay to be a crime against good parenting.

i would not wish any child to not know the benefit of adults, especially parenting ones... foster homes are for the best sometimes, but they should only be a stepping stone to a real home, whatever that entails.

thats the longest speech you have made in a long time monkee, the fact that i disagree with almost all of it not withstanding.

consider this, deviant sex with children was socially acceptable not so very long ago, people tauting its beneficial nature to the child if allowed, and i am sure they believed it, pointing out that the child said they enjoyed it as well.. then one day someone makes a law forbidding it, which stands to this day.. does one not believe that even back then many cried about their rights being violated?

gays rationalize it away as nonsequitur because pedophilia has been a law since before their birth, but the fact remains, wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

gayisms aside, the question was should gays be allowed to marry, my answer remains no, not for religious reasons, but for the gays selfish reasons for wanting it.

disagreeing is perfectly acceptable, but doing so doesn't not in any way make it right or correct.

The real ignorance I see is that people can't get past the SEXUAL part of gay relationships. They seem to think gay relationships are based only on 'unnatural' sexual desires. The truth is, many of these people are in love, and have been together for years. I used to hang out and study with this lesbian couple when I was in Buffalo, and they were so cute together. You could tell they really cared about each other, it was as genuine as any heterosexual relationship I've ever seen. It's bulls**t that they shouldn't be socially and legally recognized as a couple.

Another thing about the sexual stuff... much of it is stuff that heterosexual couples do too. There are lots of things couples do together that I find kind of icky, doesn't mean I'm going to judge them for it. Because it's none of my business.

As for homosexuality being somehow dangerous to our culture, maybe people should listen to the scientists and not the bible-thumpers:

Scientists counter Bush view / Families varied, say anthropologists

?The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution,? said the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association.

Bush has cast the union between male and female as the only proper form of marriage, or what he called in his State of the Union address ?one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.?

American anthropologists say he?s wrong.

?Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies,? the association?s statement said, adding that the executive board ?strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.?

I'm not making a point of Monqui, i'm just saying if you look back and read what you type you might see how crazy it actually looks... sorry to make comparisons with some of the greatest tyrants on earth but..

quitting marriage because gays are allowed to do so also ~ purity laws/beliefs? HELLO 1933? Tell hitler we have some more rubbish to add to mein kampf!

"gays rationalize it away as nonsequitur because pedophilia has been a law since before their birth, but the fact remains, wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it."

"gays" have a birth? is gay a race? an indoctrination? what? you see, generlisations and misinformed ignorance is the worse way to form an opinion, its just the same as Nazis, white power groups et al.

i know youll argue back, but I hope one day you can see your judgement is clouded, whether you come back to "agree" or not is irrelevant, but most of your thoughts about the homosexual community now seems to be based on hearsay and inventions of your head :/