And naturally that ends the discussion right there! There are absolutely no gay men in long term relationships. I personally am in the 13th year of a casual one night stand with the same guy. Several other members here have been having a fling with the same guy for over 20 years. Clearly the experience of your friends is the only one that is possible.
If you don’t want confusion, why are you bringing up an objection that has nothing to do with what I said? I didn’t say anything about the practice of homosexuality. I was talking about legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
They were educated men who lived in the homosexual environment all the time. They were quite knowledgeable about it and told me quite a lot (more than I really needed to know, actually).
Not an easy one.
Yes, it really does. Your position is inherently insulting to gay couples, by legally assigning them a lower status that straight couples. That’s an inherently insulting - to say nothing of unequal - position.
This is objectively false.
We *have *proven ourselves to be every bit as worthy. That’s why we’re demanding what we deserve: equal recognition.
I remember when I used to defend you has more liberal than most of the country on the subject of gay rights. Funny how times have changed, isn’t it?
It is not necessary if what is desired is ‘acceptance’ of the practice of homosexuality (Plato, anyone?). The two are not related. If anything, it is causing people to be *less *accepting.
I totally agree. What those particular people told you is the only possibility. The experience of college students in the 60’s is the end all, be all of human sexuality.
People have never been more accepting of gay rights and gay couples than they are right now in Western society. At best, this is wrong and kind of disingenuous.
I’m always entertained when people who say they’re repulsed by homosexuality go on and on about gay sex.
So…you’re fine with same-sex marriage now? Because that’s what’s going on: we, as a society, collectively, are changing marriage customs.
Legal and judicial rulings merely reflect this change in sensibility; they are not determining it. How is this difficult for you to understand?
I mostly feel sorry for **Melchior **because after forty years he still hasn’t figured out that his gay “friends” in college were just making sport of him. Poor sap.
This is simply false. Judges have repeatedly ruled against laws supporting traditional marriage, including constitutional amendments enacted by referendum. Most of us think it is some kind of sick joke. Even the ancient Greeks would laugh at this!
I support the proposal that I have hear tossed around to make judicial rulings subject to referendum. The notion that a single person has more authority than the electorate is ludicrous.
In some states it’s being done by judges. In others, it’s elected officials. And if you look at polls, you see there’s very wide support for it among the public - so you can expect more of both. The whole “aaah! judges!” bugaboo is getting pretty tired.
You know who you wouldn’t hear that from? The people who wrote the Constitution. This is never going to happen, and there’s a reason the judiciary is part of the system.
Checks and balances. But the framers used this language: ‘Consent of the governed’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
This replaced the previous concept of the divine right of kings.
The judiciary is out of control. They cannot seem to understand the simplest arguments and when a straw man argument is before them.
The CONSTITUTION has more authority than the electorate. And that’s not ludicrous at all. Thank God for judges who save us from the people sometimes.
Yes. The judiciary is one of those.
Not with regard to judicial rulings that go against the will of the majority. They didn’t think much of the general public, you know.
I’m not sure who “us” is in this sentence, but if you mean “Americans,” most of us favor SSM now.
Yes, but mostly because we let women and poor people vote.
Well, they owned slaves and women were not allowed to vote. Anything else you care to bring up?
I am not among them. Some people are more or less *resigned *to it because they have lost faith in the rationality of the judiciary and consider the fight not worth the effort. Many of us feel that judges have no authority to change our culture and traditions when attacked by such flimsy arguments.
For the record, I also oppose the constant chipping away at Roe vs Wade by state legisatures.
Same-sex marriage only affects these concerns in a beneficial way. Same sex couples also raise children. Those children deserve the protection of having married parents.
And I oppose stripping marriage of it’s 1 man + 1 woman componentry (excellent made-up word!). Men should have the right to marry women. They should also have the right to marry men, and women to marry women. No stripping of any sort of componentry is required.
Yeah, I kinda picked up on that.
Yes, but those people are a minority. Most people think SSM should be legalized.
Flimsy? Anti-marriage laws cost this woman over 300,000 dollars. Can you present an argument why she should have to pay over a quarter of a million dollars just because the person she spent her life with was another woman?
Same-sex marriage has now won several referendums and polling indicates that it could win quite a few more.
Your propaganda is out of date.