<gathering courage> I actually am an opponent to gay marriage as well. It's not because I hate gay people (some of my best friends are gay people (I hate it when people say things like that :-)) or think they should be discriminated against, either. It's just that I happen to be married. Well, it's not something that just happened really, but you know what I mean. Anyway, marriage means something special to me. It means far more to me than a contract or a business deal, which seems to be how most people think of it these days. To me, marriage is an incredibly deep and serious commitment with many profound spiritual implications (this may be the true source of our disagreement, actually). The spiritual implications that I believe are associated to marriage pretty much preclude same sex marriages. They also preclude man-woman marriages that are business contract-esque, come to think of it. It's a very complicated issue when you dig in, I think. But anyway, you can have your opinion and I can disagree with it and still be your #1 ol' school fan, okay? Please? :-) Oh, and I should add... Flame away!!! :-)

Uhm, no. Just because the union is missing either a penis or a vagina doesn't mean that its any less of a validly deep and serious commitment. Spiritual even, if thats what rings your bells. The thing that really gets on my goat about lack of samesex marriages is that [at least over here in aus] non-married couples miss out on a lot of legal rights when one partner dies. If there's no will then they don't get treated any different than if they'd been a housemate of the deceased. Even if there *is* a will, they're not eligible to get the life insurance payout. There's more but its Friday afternoon over here and my brain is about to fall out my ear.

Dan - I absolutely agree that many gay relationships are deep and committed. They may even be "spiritual" for that matter. Obviously anatomy has nothing to do with those things. But I suggest that marriage need not have anything to do with those things, either. Yep, there is so much more to this issue. We could discuss it all day and still disagree (that's a right we *all* enjoy, right? :-). I just wanted to present the idea that one can oppose samesex marriages for reasons other than hate and ill will. It's possible that our Prez doesn't hate gay people and that he's not trying to be cruel. He could be basing his stance on ideas he has, the same way we all do (or on ideas his bankrollers have, the same way all politicians do). By the way, I'm fairly certain Rory knows all these things. You probably do, too, Dan. Rory usually disagrees with things more calmly and intellectually, less angrily. I haven't seen many posts where he just calls someone he disagrees with a stupid Nazi bastard and leaves it at that. :-) He was just ranting because he thinks Bush is stupid and he felt fed up with that, I guess. So, that's okay. Who doesn't go on the occasional rant? I dunno. Maybe Bush is a stupid bastard. Maybe I am too. But I don't hate anyone, so maybe Bush doesn't either. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay, so... back to the irreverent crap? :-)

Wow :) This *is* a pretty complicated subject. Dan F: Right on, brutha'. Stuart: You're right in implying that I shouldn't have generalized and assumed that people are opposed to gay marriages because of bigotry. It's interesting, though, because you refer to marriage as a very personal thing. I agree with this to no end, and it is for this reason that I consider one couple's marriage to not be the business of anybody else. More importantly, though, I think that it shouldn't be up to *one* person to lead the charge and shut the whole thing down ('course, it isn't one person anymore now that the Pope's involved). And, you're very correct about one thing: We could argue all day and never agree. At any rate, I'm glad that you spoke up. Yours is a perspective with which I was not familiar. It's important to me, especially when discussing a subject like this, to get the opposing viewpoint. I might not agree with it, but I can at least understand your motivation for feeling the way you do. Anyway, of *course* you can still be my "#1 ol' school fan" - More so, actually. I like it when people express their opinions even when they're worried that other people might oppose them in no small way. When putting this post up, I figured I'd lose a couple readers, but that's worth it for me. That we're all saying what we actually feel is an indication that we all have at least some integrity, and that's more important to me at the moment than who's right. So, back to the irreverent crap, as you say. :)

I'm quite happy to leave it at we agree to disagree. Its cool to see someone who doesn't jump in with the flamethrower set to incinerate. But, we all know I'm right of course :-)

Must... resist... temptation... to have last word... :-)

Hey - This could actually be kind of fun... *I'm* going to get the last word :) There. Got it.

ok no! Everyone is affected by Gay marriages!! Even if i dont have gay friends my kids and grand kids will think its ok because if its legal for fags to be married then my kids will think its ok and that goes against everthing ive ever taught them!!!

Libby, people aren't trained to be gay. Geez.

im not saying people are trained to be gay! because they most certainly are not! all these people that think they were born gay...pshh now thats just stupid...well anyways, earlier i was just trying to say that you or who ever said people arent effected by gay people is wrong we are effected by gay people..my kids will see that & think its ok when its not...never has gay marriage been ok why should we say its ok now??

Libby,
When was it ok to NOT own people? When was it NOT ok for a black person to use a "white" restroom? When was it ok to NOT live under a tyrannical king? You have just come to that point in your life when you stop changing with the tides of time. I say let go and wash into the sea. People are born gay and some enculturated to see it is ok, but gay has always been around and always will be. Just accept it and love your child despite their queerness.

Ok Eurpides let me guess....ur gay arent u? ok listen here you little faggot gay is not right bcuz if it was then wouldnt it already be legal to marry someone of the same sex & no one would even care, bcuz its the right thing to do? well its not U little butt PLUG!

Yo Lib,

Who the hell gave you the right to not like gays? If you live in the US, it was a bunch of people who thought that "the way things have always been" really sucked because they were persecuted for believing what they wanted. People with the same attitude also got slavery abolished, even though there were plenty of people that disagreed and thought that they would be negatively affected by that (which they were of course, because it's hard to not be affected when your free slave labor, butlers, and maids are suddenly given the rights of a human being).

Guess what? You're just another one of the people that's going to get crushed by the movement that pushes equality for *all*. You're so busy worrying about what *other* people "should" do that you don't realize that if *you* were forced to do only what other people wanted you to, you'd be a devout Catholic piss boy for the local Duke.

</flamethrower>

<logic="on">
Stuart,
I like people voicing their opinions, even if they're different than mine (and I admire your guts for posting this particular opinion on such a liberal site); but it irks me when I don't see the logic of their argument. I'm afraid that all I see in your reasoning is, "cause I said so", if not outright bigotry. You claim that you think marriage is about more than gender, that it has more to do with "soul". It seems as if your definition is completely about how two people feel about eachother, but then say that you think it's not right if the two people are are of the same sex. It seems that you're relegating homosexuals to a lesser status than "normal" people. The only logical argument I can see from what you've presented is that gays must somehow not be able to feel as strongly for their significant other as a straight person can, that somehow what they feel isn't a strong enough and pure enough love to qualify for "marriage". Thus, they are, by definition, sub-human.

I would also think that if you really have some "best friends" that are gay, then you would truly care about their happiness. I'm man enough to say that I love my really good friends (not something I say to their faces; that's something I typically reserve for when I'm *in love* with someone, and that does always mean girls in my case, just fyi so that nobody thinks I've got a personal stake in this other than general personal liberty). And when you love somebody (are 'best friends' with them), you care about thier happiness, even if it causes you some unrest. If it could make some of your best friends as happy as you were to get married, wouldn't you support that?

I hope this thread isn't too old. I'd really welcome a real debate about this topic.

Food for thought: Think on just how damn similar women and men are physically. Just a small amout of the right hormones during the right time of fetus development causes "proto-organs" to become either testicles or overies, clitoris or penis glans. Men can get breast cancer and produce small amounts of "milk" liquid (like a bead of sweat). Some people are born with both male and female sex organs. Is it really a stretch to think that the natural variance of genes would produce "normal" idividuals that are physically attracted to the same sex? I just thank god I've found plenty of (ab?)normal females that think skinny dorky guys are attractive, or I'd never be able to reproduce!

Also, homosexual behavior is documented in the animal world (I especially remember hearing about ducks, for some reason), giving another data point that the base instincts that drive our reproductive attraction to a particular sex can get cross-wired.

k, that's enough. back to work...

Go suck ur dad "timmay"! oh & ur name is Timmay? yup thats a fags name for ya!

Bush is a christian- Christian's DON'T HATE! Just as the Bible speaks out against homosexuality, it also speaks out against hate, many many times. As you are entitled to your opinion, so is President Bush. He obviously has the majority of the people behind him, as you do not. I don't think it is fair to try to push your beliefs on other people. You say you agree to disagree, but your comments go against that. I do not hate gays, but I don't agree with that lifestyle. If marriage isn't defined as one man and one woman, what will become of marriage? Shall a man be allowed to marry his daughter, what about his dog? Whose to say a man can't love his dog and want to have special rights with it? Maybe they should even be allowed to adopt? This is ludacris of course! But we do have some strange ones out there who might take it to this level, and this is why we MUST have a standard. It has worked for us all these years- if it's not broken, don't fix it. There is NO scientific evidence that proves someone is born gay. A black man is born black, and that's proven. You cannot compare two seperate issues when one is concrete and the other is a theory. You may call me a hater, but you are sadly mistaken. Just a conservatice christian who is bashed daily by liberals who judge me and pretend to be open minded. Next time you feel like bashing the President, have a good reason!

Uh. I'm a woman, and I'm married--to a man. Marriage is very special to me, too. But I don't oppose gay marriage. I don't think other people getting married, regardless of who they are, says anything about my marriage or reflects at all on my marriage. Every marriage is different. One would have to have some serious insecurities about their own marriage to oppose gay marriage because they think it makes their own marriage less special. My marriage is special no matter who can or can't get married. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the specialness of any marriage, because the specialness of marriage is determined by each couple. Gay marriage has to do with equal rights for ALL. Marriage is an incredibly deep and serious commitment to gay people who chose to marry, just as it is for straight people, if not more, considering many straight people get married just because they acted like fools and accidently conceived a child--or for other equally wrong reasons. Yes, marriage has religious implications, but different ones for ALL. Christians believe one thing, but people of my religion believe an entirely different thing. Why should the Christian beliefs about gay marriage set the standard for our government's stance on gay marriage? Religion and government are meant to be seperate. If not, the Constitution would have been written very differently. Anyway, my main point is that other people's marriages have nothing to do with my own. My marriage is special no matter what, and I only wish that everyone out there was blessed with that feeling and didn't feel the need to prevent others from marrying to try and make their own marriage more special...

Libby, don't you have better things to do than call people names? "If gay was right, wouldn't it already be legal to marry someone of the same sex?" is a very flawed attitude. If we believed that everything legal was right and everything illegal was wrong, then slavery would never have been abolished, and black people would never have earned their civil rights. The answer to your (unintelligent) question is "No, not necessarily." If you look at history, plenty of things that we once believed were wrong have been legalized, and plenty of things we once believed were right have been made illegal. Therefore, that attitude is wrong and very irrational. With that attitude, women would still be inferior to men, and blacks would still be inferior to whites. You can't just assume something is wrong because it's not yet legal or because it's not yet illegal. You really need to take a remedial English class, by the way, to learn how to spell your words and punctuate your sentences, and I would suggest you also learn to make valid points. Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you are calling people gay for not opposing gay marriage and for using the word "butt plug."

I wonder if Liby is one of these religious hypocrits. You know anyone that actually took time and read the bible instead of going to a social club meeting, would realise that the people that agrivated Jesus the most were the religious hypocrits like Liby. Seems like over half the stories talk about the Religious people questioning why Jesus would hang out with the people of the world. Why would Jesus forgive a prostitute? What do they do? They Kill him. What's killed the most people since time began? Stupid religious people? What's causeing all these morons to blow up their own people in Iraq? Religious people. Who can only call people stupid names on here and not have an intelligent converstation? You guessed it. Libby and the religious people. Good going Liby. Your batting a thousand. I bet Jesus would be proud of your name calling. Or not.