One thing about gay marriage..... This is just my 2 cents...
In my opinion it should be "classified" differently than traditional. The human rights issue is only speaking about one's right to choose. Yes, everyone has the right to make their own choices whatever they might be. But, one relationship is pro-creative and supports the continued human existence, while the other cannot. They must be distinguished. All emotionalism aside, that is reality. Anyone who voices a disagreement with the whole gay marriage thing are almost immediatly branded as "intolerant", while it is factual that there are both "good" people and "intolerant" people on both sides of the debate. Emotionalism is killing our right to disagree on sensitive issues. And people have the right to disagree, it's ok you know. And it doesn't warrant being called "intolerant" etc.... I'm not speaking about people (on both sides of the discussion) that suffer from "verbal diahrea". Of course there are some comments that are plainly based on intolerance, or emotionalism. Not on facts. I'm not in the business of telling people what they can or cannot do, but I should be able to be honest about the reality of the relations in mind as I see it. Pro or against, we all have that right. I would also, push the envelop one step further in issues regarding possible financial (or legal) advantages to being married... I knew 2 sisters, who for many years were living together and un-married. I believe people who have a committed relationship together financially should have financial benefits. Those sisters had many investments together, like a home, car...etc. That should apply to heterosexual couples, gay couples brothers, sisters....etc. Basically, strong committed relationships should be acknowledged. Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:06:39 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian wrote: > > Any union that cannot bear children, thus, cannot be > > a true reflection of God's love....thus no gay marriage. > > > > While religions may require that a > > couple be "open to children" in order for a legitimate marriage to exist, > > legal institutions (states) do not, and CANNOT, impose such a restriction. > > As such, their arguments have no legal basis, and any continued arguments > > against gay marriage in this vein must be chalked up to bias or > > discrimination. > > > > Excellent piece and I completely agree. In my opinion not allowing > Gay marriage is denying US citizens their pusuit of happiness. In > short, it's crap. > > As Rosanne Barr said, if the Religious Right is against Gay s3x then > they should be for Gay marriage since that's the best way to prevent > s3x 8-D > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148176 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
