This doesn't tell me very nice things about the average AOL client...

No I'm not. I'll say it again: Show me where I've said Gays should not be allowed to marry. I have repeatedly stated I have a problem with society as it stands whether gays are legally married or not.

[ 02-13-2004, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yes could easily say it, and I would say it.

What is the difference between two cohabiting platonic friends-for life and two lovers? Sex. There is commitment, investment, love, communication, shared expenses, shared experiences. You name it, just no sex.

What is the difference between either of them and a couple who produced a child?

The child.

As a society let's help them KEEP it (not put it up for adoption) and raise it so it is healthy in mind, body and spirit.


<font color=lime>It seems that the notion of platonic friendship is being seriously undervalued by people here.</font> What of two siblings? Two twins? Two girlfriends who grew up together as soulmates? The list is endless. Why should people who express their love sexually be accorded any extra encouragement from the next persons, if they are not contributing an extra life to the society? The two people can look after themselves. With the child there is the extra dependent life thrown in, thus more work, and thus could use assistance.

Or an extra orange or two.

[ 02-13-2004, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Alright, question for the fellas:

Can you be platonic friends with a woman you find beautiful?

My own answer is yes. I have an abundance of beautiful women who are friends in my life. By NOT sleeping with them, they don't leave my life. We can invest in each other without it all going down the toilet. If I/we can control ourselves while single, or even in a relationship with each other, then the next partner has nothing to worry about. ;)

They also know that I truly do value them for their minds. ;) :D

The key is not letting your dick rule your life. ;)

[ 02-13-2004, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

No I'm not. I'll say it again: Show me where I've said Gays should not be allowed to marry. I have repeatedly stated I have a problem with society as it stands whether gays are legally married or not. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>My mistake, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. You state in this thread (and in others on this topic) that the ability for the couple to procreate should be a determining factor. You imply that it should perhaps be the most important determining factor....but you don't ever actually come right and say gays shouldn't be allowed to married.

When pressed on the issue, you expound for pages on tangential discussions of the ills of society, explaining in depth that the village should raise the child and we should all get rid of cars. None of that actually has anything to do with whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, but you do give us a very in depth look at your opinion on those other subjects.

I'm not saying those issues aren't important or worthy of discussion. I am just saying they have very little to do with whether or not gays should be allowed to marry...and THAT particular issue is the original topic of this thread.

So to prevent any further misunderstanding, I will ask you in a simple "Yes or No" fashion if you feel gays should be allowed to marry thier chosen life partner and receive the same legal rights and benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.</font>

I have already answered that.

I believe society needs to support child birthing families. Yes, above childless couples of any preference, yes above platonic friends. I believe child birthing families must be supported and assisted, elevated and encouraged.

Let me ask you, as an aside, what legal rights and benefits marriage entails in America at the moment.

And yes, we should get rid of cars.

News update:
US gay marriage row reignites in San Francisco

A series of weddings of gay couples in the San Francisco has reignited a debate in the US about same-sex marriages.
The multiple ceremonies were in defiance of a state law adopted after a referendum in 2000 which restricts marriage to heterosexuals.

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said: "We have reignited a fundamental debate that's about discrimination. Whether or not the city and county of San Francisco is going to continue against same gender couples." It opens the possibility of similar unions in other states. US president George Bush is expected soon to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But that is a difficult task and can take years to push through.

[Source: EuroNews]

<font color=deepskyblue>No, that does not answer the question I asked, which is "Do you believe gays should be allowed to marry their chosen life partner."

The issue of whether society should support child birthing families is not in question. The question is simply "Should gays be allowed to marry, yes or no?" Your response of society support "child birthing families" implies that you feel the answer is no...yet when I claim that you feel this way, you say "Where have I ever said that?"

The fact is, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>, you have deflected the question every time it has been asked to the tangent discussion of society supporting child birthing families or the ability of the parents to procreate between themselves. You never actually say "Yes" or "No" to the question...so you can actually claim that both sides are misinterpeting you.

So now I am trying to get around that and avoid future misunderstanding by asking you directly whether you believe gays should be allowed to marry. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm still waiting on a definitive answer from you. As I said, your response above indicates to me that you do NOT believe they should be allowed to marry, yet you have said that interpretation is wrong. But you also have never said they should be allowed to get married. Instead, you discuss the ability to procreate and for the village to raise the child. Again, those are important issues, but they aren't an answer (in and of themselves) to the question.

As for the legal rights extended to married couples, <font color=tan>Timber</font> is in a far better position to answer that than I. He has given numerous examples where the gay partner was DENIED the rights that would have been extended to a hetero partner. Those posts are a good starting point. But perhaps our esteemed attorney will be kind enough to list out a more specific list for you, if his time permits.</font>

[img]graemlins/grabblue.gif[/img] Hijacking your post:

I don't think that providing assistance 'for the few' is a very effective long-term answer to the problem of disjointed families, and childhood trauma. There's a difference between helping someone in need, and providing a crutch for them to walk with, but the difficulty lies in the fact that the distinction between the two is different for every case.

Some people could use a leg up in life, espescially families that are working minimum wage jobs, with no room for advancement. Yes, I believe they should recieve tax breaks, if not complete exemption for the duration of the raising of thier children.

But to provide for people, on a continuous basis, based on the fact that they are a family unit, will make them dependent upon the system. And when that happens, people might even consider having children, solely for the financial benefits it brings them, not for the sake of bringing a new life into the world to be nurtured. Do we really want increased birthrates of children who exists for no other reason than the fact that his/her parents have never learned to survive out of government assistance? I don't.