Sorry, you didn't explicitly lay that out and I'm glad that you feel that way. Personally I feel that the title and adoption rights should be available. Agree to disagree. I know and I do not agree with that. Trying to force a church to do that only invites more animosity and is generally only done to seek attention. Its demeaning to gay people who actually wish to find common ground. I believe that you do as you seem very articulate and don't resort to petty BS. I appreciate that.
Your article is not "way too long" to cite a single SCOTUS decision. It cites none. It only cites California Court. SCOTUS has not ruled on same-sex marriage as a civil right (although it is pending). All who claimed such were mistaken, My point stands.
Fact: Using 'fact' doesn't magically make something a fact. Buh bye. Argument on its lowest level will be your solo pursuit.
Admittedly, I am more "progressive" on this than many Conservatives. I have been hugely influenced by seeing my younger brother grow up gay. Smart. Articulate. With a job that I wish that I could brag about, but which is uniguely high within the gay legal community, and would then take away the veil of anonymity. Which enables many real downsides. I have literally gone out to dine on occasion where there were 5 of us at a table in an upscale restaurant, and I was the only straight guy. If you have never done it, it takes some concessions. Some easing into. But my brother and I have been exceedingly frank and honest about the entire ordeal. He is 53. I am 58. We got history behind us on the mutual understandings. My hope is for Civil Unions in all 50 states. All privileges except adoption, and only because I see that as a difficult one to come to a decision on. There needs to be a high bar with all adoptions.
No one claim that they were the same. People are claiming that people should be able to marry whoever they love except for current restrictions. There is no restriction on same sex marriages in some states but there are restrictions in other states. Society asks "Why?" And none of you have come up with any good reasons except your bias, religious beliefs, and straw arguments.
Arguments against sibling marriage is similar to interracial marriage. Arguments against bestiality is similar to interracial marriage... Arguments against Pedophilia is similar to interracial marriage... Arguments against to polygamy is similar to interracial marriage.. What's the point? I say if gays can marry, than everyone can marry anyone or anything they want.. http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/08/woman-marries-her-dog-seriously/ http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2011/02/humans-in-india-marry-dogs-to-ward-off-evil-spirits/ now back to more partying
2% had a male-on-male sexual encounter within the last year. This article in the Open AIDS Journal pegs it at 2.9% of the population at large, with a margin between 2.6% and 3.2% (go back further and the numbers get quite a bit higher), so the 2% in the article - well, okay, 2.1%, varying by race - is not that far off the mark. It's also possible that I misread the data. But did you even read the data to begin with? As said, if you want to assert bias, provide evidence. You now have the dataset, the methods of accumulation, and much of the information they used to provide their conclusions. The sample size was quite clearly not 10, they didn't interview solely people coming out of the "homosexuals for monogamy" club, and their numbers match up with society at large. So what's the bias? You have all the information you need to review the study; how come you're still throwing out hypotheticals and baseless accusations, rather than, say, actually saying, "here's the error, here's the bias, this is why the study is bad"?
I have a hard time believing that any sample size in our country , gay or straight , would have only 2 % who has had sex contact within the last year . Sets off alarm bells for most people ... Btw i support gay marriage but I doubt that makes any difference .
Well, you have lost any progressive attitude. Have you asked your brother about marriage and adoption? This issue is about equality. Marriage is not the same as civil union according to allow all the laws. There is no need to change the laws when marriage should be open to all people. Adoption should be open to all people while going through the same procedures as any other person or persons.
Bomac. Your post makes too many really uninformed assumptions. I had already pointed out that I wanted Civil Unions to enable all privileges as marriage except with adoption. ALL. And that adoptions needed a better look for all, as I am not content with the current standards overall. Clearly I have much more experience on this issue than you, and it ain't close. My brother is married. He also is paid to advocate for gay "rights". Well paid to do it. And he is the guy for that job. He is not a flamer either. He is as pragmatic as me. Which is hugely pragmatic. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
When a child or an animal can give its legal consent, then we'll talk. There goes bestiality and pedophilia. Ad for Sibling Marriage, as long as they are consenting adults, why do you care? Hell, more states allow 1st cousins to marry than gays as is
I didn't skip shnit. I went to what you linked in response to me. If you have a point to make, buried in the mass of posts here, link it again, instead of making such a petulant and retarded post ! I don't read all of your posts ! Why would anyone waste the time ?
Right here For someone who CLAIMS not "to have a horse in this race" you sure are being obtuse about gay marriage.
Who give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*)squirell how promiscuous anyone is. Last time I checked this was America.
Stones. Your link make no credible case regarding SCOTUS, which is my point all along. SCOTUS has not yet elevated gay marriage to a "civil right". As for me being "obtuse" .... "NO". It is you who are so stuck-up on rainbows. But I wish you well regardless. - - - Updated - - - On this we walk hand-in-hand.
Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) said anything about SCOTUS? Its the right that is making the same exact arguments that were brought up against interracial marriage. SCOTUS = Strawman on your part
nobody said race and behavior were the same thing. race and gender are the same thing however, which is what this is all about.
When these married siblings produce (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up children and I have to pay for their medical care with my hard-earned tax dollars....that's when I start caring..........
BS. My objections in this thread about "civil rights" traces back to others claiming that SCOTUS had made it a civil right that encompassed gay marriage. Which is false. You yourself have yet to link anything of merit to change that fact. You do have some flaming strawmen under your belt though. One more stupid post and you earn my Ignore list.