Actually the Supreme Court legislated from the bench (admittedly my opinion) in that instance so on the surface the unions were legal until the people could vote on it.

I do find it interesting how anyone that speaks about this issue has to say how they either have friends that are homosexual or something like that. Our society seems to be so politically correct anymore that we can't just talk about the issue. Seems like there's too much emotion out there and not enough pragmatism and logic. Anyone else notice that?

I also get a kick out of homosexual marriage supporters just bashing people that are against it. They scream in your face about how intollerant you are or that you're a biggot for not accepting others beliefs. Yet that's exactly what they're doing :lol:

I thought that was a joke :neutral:

LOL..thank you...I guess you have to be british to get away with this satire

Maybe that's why I got it - I was raised on Benny Hill and Monty Python :lol:

Wasn't sure, the post was too short to derive enough context for me. Now, if Linc said something like that, I would know it was satirical because 95% of what he says is... :whistle:

Sir...as my post count grows you will find that 99% of what I say is satirical:diablo:

OK, mental note to self: Don't take bustitup seriously. :wink:

For me, marriage is just a word. Using it to describe something other than a union between a man and a woman has never threatened my societial building blocks.

"the marriage of music and dance";

"a marriage of ideas";

"married to their work";

"he's married to the mob";

"a marriage between two companies"

...Its a word used in many places to describe a union having nothing to do with a man and a woman.

I could care less about what its called.

I do, however, care about equality, and some laws are written to only include rights and privelages for those who are married. Tax breaks, custody rights, visitation rights, all just a few examples where laws have proclusions for those who are married. Using the actual term "marriage" or "married".

So.... I dont care how it happends, but to make things equal....either gays should have the right to marry, or all the laws that include marriage will need to be rewritten.

Which is faster? costs less money? easier?
How much money has gone into limiting the use of a word?

I'd rather be running my revo.

Am I gay?:neutral:

Only for the lincPimp and thats only on wednesdays!:lol:

No....I'm not gay. But I think we all know someone who is. I happen to know alot of gay people. Some of them care to be married, some could care less. Just like the heterosexual people I know...some care, others dont. I just think everyone should have the same rights. Even the right to call their union whatever they want....weather they want to use the word marriage or not should be upto the couple...not a bunch of others who live in fear for no reason.

wow this has gotten way off points... Cheers to the mods that make this a great forum!

That's fine you feel marriage is just a word - but with all due respect, the fact is that words have meanings. Especially marriage.

And I'm all for equality too - when it exists and not when it doesn't. That's what this comes down to. Homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. The tax breaks and all that stuff go with marriage because of what that union provides to society. Doesn't that make sense? How can you say the two things are equal when they're not?

And I really don't understand the comments about " . . . others who live in fear . . . " I have no idea how you can judge the intentions of others as "fear" when they simply don't agree with you.

just some food for thought on the marriage topic: I grew up in small town minnesota, I have inherited racist and homophobic traits due to my upbringing; laughing at off color jokes and using terminology that isn't politically correct. However, anybody should be able to do whatever they want as long as no one is physically hurt, and I see everyone as equal. That being said, here is my thought: people talk of the sanctity of marriage, the fact that family and procreation is the building block of society. Thats all fine and dandy, in a perfect world, which we are not in. We are in a world where those of us "allowed" to marry (straight people) abuse the family principle by having bastard children, ruin the sanctity of marriage with extra marital affairs and scoff at the idea of commitment as they are on their 5th marriage and know if it doesn't work this time they can always get divorced. So why is it okay for straight people to get married a dozen times and screw it up and gays can't even get married once? They should make divorce illegal, not gay marriage.

one wouldn't know such a thing unless they were in the same closet:whistle:......:lol:just messin' with ya':intello:

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that since a certain percentage of people don't treat marriage in it's intended context we should just bag the whole thing? Not sure what to say there. What ever happened to principles? Just because people are flawed and fail doesn't mean you stop trying.

And I totally disagree with your argument that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as nobody is physically hurt. In my opinion emotional abuse can be more damaging than physical. And no, I'm not saying homosexual marriage is emotional abuse per se.

You know, this whole thing is weird to me. Why is it so complicated? The fact is that homosexual unions are not natural while heterosexual unions are. Why is that so hard to get? Men and women fit together by nature and the consequences are procreation. Pretty plain and simple to me. I could care less what two homosexuals do with or to eachother, but you can't just re-define the word marriage because you want to and "feel" it's the same. It's just not.

I can't go around and start changing the definition of words because I think they're just words or whatever. This whole thing has nothing to do with any specious arguments about "oh, well so and so has gotten married 18 times" or "oh yeah, well I know a homosexual couple that has been together forever and raised great kids" or whatever else. That has nothing to do with the fact that the unions are different. Not the same but different. Why is that not ok? Why can't they just be different? Can someone please answer that for me?

You got it, only British people can get away with satire.

I have a gay employee, not really but we call him that

It is funny that people bring up their gay relations when discussing that topic. It all boils down to the fact that gay people have deep down desires to be accepted and be more "normal". And marriage is one of those things that most normal people do. (still funny that the institution of marrige is degrading with the high divorce rate.)

For me, there is a big difference between understanding and acceptance. I understand gay people, and why they are gay. I do not and will never accept them, or find their actions acceptable. I will not be mean or discriminate against gays, but I do not want their lifestyle to be in any way the norm. That is their cross to bear and will always be outcast to a certain degree. Just not natural (as BrianG said). Man, I sound conservative.