Given the moratorium which we've been skating dangerously close to with this topic (and the pope one), I'll leave it at consequences, everything from not being permitted to donate blood, consequences of sin, discrimination, having excellent track lighting on their ceilings [img]tongue.gif[/img] , etc etc

As I said before it's not necessarily even a choice they are aware of on a consious level, and any number of environmental factors can contribute to the choice, but it remains a personal decision.

I saw these stripers rub and suck all over each other this weekend at a club. One of them got all over my friend's gal, and even got her top off. It was hot, so hot. Choices? It was all about choices. Everyone there chose to be frikkin turned on!

I think I might be a gay woman. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img]

I guess my point is, how in the world can this be bad or evil? It's beauty, art, and higher form of existence. It is TRUTH. :drool:

PRO GAY ALL THE WAY!!!

[ 04-26-2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

So you're telling me you can't switch it off? Do you really mean to tell me you have that little control over your own mind and body? I pity you. You are a slave to your desires then, and therefore a slave to women that turn you on.

If I get turned on it's because I chose to let go. I chose to give in to my instincts. I have control over my willpower. My partner has confidence and trust in me, because they know my commitment to them overrides whatever temtpation may come my way.

As for your friends gal, she was simply an unpaid stripper for the night. She got sucked in to performing for free what the others were getting paid to do. Stripping is a job. They do it for the money. If you think otherwise, you've fallen for the act hook line and sinker sucka.

Who would pay for what they can get for free anyway?

So what does "accepting them" mean? I'll tell you that legally, it at least means that their couplings will not be discriminated against. Which in turn means that they won't be denied benefits other couplings will be granted. Acknowledging that their unions deserve the legal benefits of any other union accomplishes the goal of "accepting them" on the legal front. As far as NOT portraying them as "normal" and "desirable," well, now, that's up to PARENTING, isn't it? Just as discouraging drug use, encouraging church attendance, or discouraging pre-marital sex is up to PARENTING.

You have correctly identified the issue as a moral one. Now, we should give these couples their fair rights legally, and retain the moral issue to its rightful place -- which is the home, and not the judiciary or legislature.

Why?

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because we have a seperation of church and state in this country. See, my morals are different from your morals are different from George Bush's morals. I'm a very moral person. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality and have a huge problem with war, discrimination, injustice, and greed. I believe George Bush does immoral things. Some don't. Some would percieve ME as immoral. That's their right.

You can't legislate morality because hardly ANY morality is universal.

Deal with it.

[ 04-27-2005, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. Answer: Because the most fundamental view of our country is that you can create a uotpia based on one rule -- that you do not harm others, and otherwise you are free -- completely free. This is specifically targeted at not legislating morality. I think it's difficult to legislate morality outside those things that directly hurt/harm other people. I admit that philosophically this stance is shaky for a number of reasons -- chief among them the fact that you can broaden or tighten the whole thing based on your understanding of what constitutes "harm."

[ 04-27-2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because we have a seperation of church and state in this country. See, my morals are different from your morals are different from George Bush's morals. I'm a very moral person. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality and have a huge problem with war, discrimination, injustice, and greed. I believe George Bush does immoral things. Some don't. Some would percieve ME as immoral. That's their right.

You can't legislate morality because hardly ANY morality is universal.

Deal with it. </font>[/QUOTE]You yourself are proposing to legislate morality. You have decided "all are equal" should be made law under your interpretation of that statement. How can you criticise the other side for doing the exact same thing? That is hypocrisy and double standards.

You mention the separation of church and state, yet the state will end up dictating to the church on this issue. Is it a one-way seperation - meaning the church can't influence the state but the state can influence the church - or a true seperation? Make up your mind because at the moment you seem to want things both ways.

Get a grip and analyze what you're saying. No church will EVER be forced to perform a ceremony it disagrees with. Legalizing gay marriage will NOT force your local pastor to marry some fags -- it will be totally his and the church's decision as to whether they want to recognize gay unions, or just save them for the altar boys and priests.

However, the current state is that the churches and their congregations have forcefully kept ANYONE from recognizing gay marriages. That's a constitutional no-no. The law can't give favors based on skin color, ethnic background, or genetalia. It's that simple. If the law creates a benefit for two people who partner together for life, it has to make that benefit available to all couples, regardless of whether they are "innies" or "outies".

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. Answer: Because the most fundamental view of our country is that you can create a uotpia based on one rule -- that you do not harm others, and otherwise you are free -- completely free. This is specifically targeted at not legislating morality. I think it's difficult to legislate morality outside those things that directly hurt/harm other people. I admit that philosophically this stance is shaky for a number of reasons -- chief among them the fact that you can broaden or tighten the whole thing based on your understanding of what constitutes "harm." </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying the law should be the way you're suggesting just because "it's the right thing to do?" Or is it just because "the founding fathers said this is how it should be".

Both have a sense of either subjective morality, or religious adherance to the writings of long dead men.

Why should homosexuals be given the rights you've suggested? Is there a reason outside the subjective morality that you have?