Oh, DP. You're right. Tommy Franks gave the Army Head. That's why they would folllow him anywhere on the planet. Oh, you didn't know Gen Franks was Gay? He would never leave his buddies behind.

Mr. Gee. You failed to mention there were no Gay Scout Masters till the British got involved. Overheard at a recent Scout Meeting: "Oh, Reginald dear, we're taking the Scouts to Swan Lake tonite, would you be a dear and apply their makeup and dust the Merit Badges?".

my statement was:
"i have no right to speak for him or anyone else on their personal beliefs to the issue at hand"

key word here is SPEAK for them. i can question their standings but i cant speak for that person or their beliefs.

clear that up a bit?

You guys are f u c k i n crazy. Whatever happened to digital audio?

No, because you're treating this like an algebra problem. All you've said is that I'm unrealistic and a simp, supported by false mathematics (lots of gays = lots of minors, freedom = blind people driving).

Certainly insurance companies are affected by having to cover spouses. There's always a finanicial impact. Discrimination might well be cheaper. And your point is?

By the way, the word "marriage" seems to be an absurdly major sticking point for a lot of people. Would it change anything to call it "civil union?" After all, that wouldn't be redefining anything.

*******

Anybody else find themselves impressed with Al Sharpton in last night's debate? Sure he's an ambulance-chasing silly person, but he certainly expresses everything I feel every time he opens his mouth.

I think Tim hit the nail on the head. This is all about money. Gay's want the married status to reduce their taxes and get insurance coverage from their working spouses. It all makes total sense now.

The institution of marraige is traditionally meant as a means to legitimize a union between a man and woman. If you are a Christian, you would be living in sin if you chose to live with someone as opposed to getting married. This is the basis for marraige in this country. Like it or not this country is based on Judeo-Christian values. All the laws, including tax laws, are designed to reward those that follow the Judeo-Christian value system. So now the gay wants the same rights, but getting married doesn't legitimize their union in front of God because living a gay lifestyle is considered illegitimate from a Christian viewpoint, so there is no logical reason to get married other than for financial reasons. By the way, it is not a sin to have feelings contrary to the word of God, only the acting out and fantasizing about it. God loves all sinners and will accept all that turn to him for forgiveness and strength. Being a Christian does not mean you will never sin again, what it means is that you turn to Christ to forgive your sin, and make a conscious effort to resist future sin. Only God knows if you are serious about it, or just going through the motions. That's why you see so many Christians that seem to be a bad example, because they probably have an internal struggle going on, and haven't surrendered entirely to God.

This is all coming from a Chrsitian veiwpoint, so if you choose to ignore it, that's your choice.

A comment on 'normal'. Anybody that says normal sucks hasn't lived a normal life. I believe we are living in abnormal times right now. Normal to me is where you have a family centered life, and people do not abuse each other. Childen are taught at an early age to respect their elders, and mothers stay home to raise them. I know it sounds like a fantasy, and for many families financially impossible, but that's how I think it's supposed to be. Unfortuantely, that is not reality for most people. For anyone who grew up in an abnormal environment, you have my sympathy. Maybe someday you'll find peace.

I happen to believe that you're incredibly wrong about that, and it looks like there may even be organic evidence to prove it. Either way, sexuality is incredibly deep-rooted, and what turns us on or off is not really something we choose. Unlike Mogandus, you can certainly control your impulses - - but that's about it. It's pretty basic.

Anyway, there's a good chance we'll never know whether which of us is right (at least for the majority of cases). That's not the question, though, as I think you said.

i believe what i believe based on what i have gathered from actually talking to different people, gay or straight. if every single gay person i know was to tell me that it was purley a heriditary function, then i might have came to a different conclusion. but that brings up the question of, if some people are "born gay" why arent we all gay? and if it is heriditary, why dont all of the homosexuals have other gay family members before them? and why aren't straight people that have gay family members gay themselves? i know for a fact that the gay people i know dont have any other gay family members. but i am not sure about others. i am sure there some out there that do have other gay relitives.
but still it does leave some holes in that theory to be determined. like you said i dont think we will FULLY understand the whole aregument on this issue, but i drew my conclusion from what i know thus far.

No. I'm treating this like a philosphical/logical "problem" - which it is.

I said no such thing about you, nor did I imply it. I think you are a bright guy.

Nor did I suggest the equations you put forth up there. YOU were the one who decided to announce "how many gays" there are in the U.S., in an inapplicable attempt to support an overly-simplified argument about how large clases of people should not be 'discriminated" against.

What I HAVE been saying is: a truly MATURE discourse on this topic, intended to try and actually resolve any portion of it would have to go beyond convenient, tossed off little phrases like "It's nobody's business who marries who" and "it's a 'swing your arm to the point of someone else's nose' country."

I have simply tried to point out that a real, honest discussion of the issue has to go well beyond those oblique general statements - which are often applied incorrectly. Talk about what IS really happening, NOW and continue to talk, in the same terms, about what WOULD REALLY happen, in the future if "gay marriage" were to be recognized. All of it.

AGAIN - my point is there IS a financial impact - to A LOT of people/businesses.

And there are MANY OTHER points of "impact" - all of which need to be considered - instead of flippantly announcing "It's a private matter."

I find it really hard to believe that you STILL aren't getting that basic point.

WOW.

This, coming from the guy who said we should all have "equal rights."

Who's side are you on?

Any idea what some of the main arguments in support of maintaining separate school systems, water fountains, neighborhoods, etc. for blacks and whites in the earlier part of this century were?

Does the phrase "separate but equal is NOT equal" ring a bell?

The civil rights movement in this country was basically FOUNDED on the idea that JUST the act of segregating people into different classes - even if they get the same benefits, is in-and-of-itself, deterimentally discriminatory.

So, now you leave me wondering. 'Cause I certainly wouldn't have thought you would take that position. Would a "separate, but equal" insitution of "union" or some other euphemism for "gay marriage" be OK with you?

Or (as I would have thought) do you really need to see "gay marriage" treated (and labeled)- in ALL respects - as just "marriage?"


*******

Anybody else find themselves realizing that ALL of these issues are not so clear cut as we'd like them to be when we just announce some quickly arrived at, generic statement about how we think things "ought to be?"


- if only everything were really, REALLY simple...

John writes:
"i suggested early that sexuality is biologically predisposed, not socially conditioned. that about 1% of the population is estimated to be genetically gay. but HOW does this account for a far higher percentage of homosexual prevelance in the society at large?"

Hey John...."pal", {and anyone who clings to the notion that only a few folks are predisposed and the rest are "nudged" into gaydom by media, government, cover ups, big money etc.} You might want to go back and read my original post.
You know... the one about my female friend that was getting poked by her Grandpappy till she was 14.
I'm interested John.. "pal", really I am. How would you go about changing the sexual orientation of a kid that's been abused?
How would you go back and make good all the folks that are now what society would call damaged goods because of the Catholic church cover up?
What John would your sexual orientation be if when you were a child, your mother had continually schlepped into your room while you were sleeping... just to try to get you to do "the nasty" with her?
Your spew is ridiculous. Gay folks have been around since the beginning of recorded history. Many societies in the past have embraced the activity as being perfectly normal... perfectly human. Given that, no matter how many gays you'd like to put in front of firing squads, there'd always be another person of "difference" just around the corner.
People are all different... and for a variety of reasons. Folks like you that shun and refuse to accept the differences John, are the ones that have the real problem and probably still pee the bed at night.
Brent