No no. Gay-marriage. Marriage.
Is the relationship between hetero sex and same sex the same? No, not really. Our sexual organs seem to have 2 basic biological functions. Pleasure, and reproduction. One follows both (In basic principle, minus the barreness, "the pill"....etc.), and the other does not. It's not even even about "classing" people, as it is defining or acknowledging what is what. A man is a man if he has 2 arms or one arm. A loving relationship is a loving relationship (mother-son, brothers, "lovers"....etc). Hetero-sexual relations and homosexual relations are quiet different. Unless we somehow ignore it's part in marriage and ignore a large part of biology. We all know that sex is a big part of marriage in general. I sometimes would like to "sugar-coat" my view, honestly, but I would have to be dishonest in the way I see it. If people can't express stuff the way they see it, I guess freedom of speach was a joke. Emotionalism and sensitivity runs high in this debate. Once again, I'm not in the business of telling people what to do. I have gay friends. But I should have the right to call it as I see it, just like everyone else. Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:59:48 -0600, Marlon Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, I'll bite. What other "classifications" should we come up with? > My friends have tried invitro several times and even though they get > pregnant, her body rejects the pregnancy, so therefore it doesn't seem > like they will ever birth a child. What should there's be called, > "Married-Barren"? What about people for whom adoption is their first > choice, "Married-Wannabees"? Interracial marriages? Oh yea, they need > their own labels too! Hmm..I could really piss a bunch a people off > with that one. While were at it, why don't we rename heterosexual > same race marriages as "Married-Proper", because afterall, once we > start classifying them, we need to make sure there's a hierarchy of > the most desireable types. > > Ok, my rant's done now. > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:39:32 -0400, Yves Arsenault > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148179 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
