New York passes Gay Marriage

Me? Angry? Never. I'll say that I'm somewhat nonplussed by some of the bizarre words that come out of your mouth, but am no longer fazed by them. What you call "gay marriage", I simply call "marriage". If a man and a woman up until this point in time have been allowed to marry in what you call a "traditional marriage", then don't you think that gay people have been discriminated against long enough by not being able to enjoy the same privilege? I do. And I can't think of a valid reason to not let them marry. The tide is turning against you on this one, Tom. You've been wrong on it all along and the cards are about to deal you a losing hand. Of course, nothing anyone says in the forum will probably ever make you change your mind. But, seriously, take a moment and think about this one. Can you please give me one reason why your neighbors who attend the same church you do, shop at the same grocery store you do, drive the same streets you do and pay the same taxes you do are unable to engage in the same privilege to marry the person of their choosing just as you do? We supposedly live in a free society, remember? Just one valid reason, that's all I ask.

 

Did you really just say that? Wow.....

 

Steve and Betty, not Steve and John.

 

Actually I typed it.

It is correct as well. If you want to hold on to your tally whacker your entire life, while everyone else simply puts their hands in their pockets, you have that right. If you want your spouse to kick you in the shebangys every night and she's willing to oblige, you both have that right. Just don't tell me that it's normal behavior and I should simply accept it as such, and that you'd like the practice to be recognized as traditional marriage, and I don't, you shouldn't be able to force me to acknowledge it as such...because it isn't.

 

(IMO) ...though I accept that I may be wrong...

I'd agree that homosexuality is not a normal condition... for a normal person, or heterosexual (as nature needs for propagation of our species). But I've come to the conclusion that it IS a normal condition for a homosexual (as nature needs for an over-population).

Homosexuality has a definition that precludes it from being recognized as the normal condition, therefore IMO you are both right and wrong. Right for recognizing it as abnormal for propagation of our species, and wrong for NOT recognizing that nature has a plan in place for a crowded population such as ours.

 

So that is all the 'something' they need, huh? And, if that life union couple of Dan and Stan live next door to you and are walking through your neighborhood holding hands every evening, that is ok? Or at the park? Or when they are out shopping for groceries together? Or at the movies? Stan is wearing a nice (but modest) summer dress, btw. And during the week, he drives Dan, who is a teacher, to work every day. 'Nothing' needs to be done about that because they are 'life unioned' and not married?

 

..................... still waiting for just one valid reason...

 

No, no ,no and no. I wouldn't want Dan (portrayed as you have done) teaching my kids morality either. Perhaps Dan shouldn't be a teacher it he wants to teach wearing a dress? I was speaking strictly to the recognition of the "couple" legally. Further considerations (like that) would need to be considered separately.

 

Because it disrupts society and it is not what needs to be taught to children as "normal". It isn't.

 

What do you consider appropriate punishment or deterrence for those 'further considerations'? Fines, Local Jail, Prison Time or 'something' else for that Life Union couple?

 

Youre being an jerk just for the sake of being one. ''When gas escapes, can you hear it? That's one way to tell.''.
Do you think a statement like that is true? Oh thats right; you think alot of BS is true. I think you are putting us on. You just want to keep up homophobe pretense for some retarded reason.

 

You are not so naive as to believe that some married(and single)straight men like anal sex, are you? And I mean being the catcher. their wife or girlfriend oblige them using whats called a strap-on. You cannot be so stupid as to not know this.

 

I wasn't using "further considerations" as a form of penalty or punishment. I was speaking to things like men wearing dresses being allowed to teach my kid. A deterrent? Men who wear dresses aren't allowed to teach youths.
Bottom line...enjoy your lifestyle. Don't combine it with mine and call it normal. It's bad behavior, and it shouldn't be rewarded by the bulk of society. Marriage is established protocol between one man and one woman. Husband and wife consist of man and woman. That's what marriage is a celebration of. Redefining marriage to the majority of society to included man and man, or woman and woman, is insulting to those that believe in the sanctity of marriage and what it represents. Gays making such a huge deal about insisting they too be called "marriage" is damaging to their cause IMO.
Become "joined". Have whatever legal implications you want, short of insisting your union is/must be called marriage. Find your own term, establish your own protocol, and enjoy. Leave my marriage and its definition alone. Build your own gay churches and have at it. I'm sure straight people won't be badgering you and yours, insisting you call our "marriage" term to be called "gay union ceremonies" or whatever.

 

That was an attempt at humor. Are you gay? Why are so so defensive? Just trying to be extreme to help you recognize the lines you are crossing, and actually, if gays are allowed to be called marriage, I think expelling gas should be rewarded when done in public. Don't I have the same rights as non gassers?

 

That's perverted behavior also. So it happens. Your point? Maybe we should make a big cake and with "straight men can enjoy anal too" spelled out on the cake? Celebrate it! Call it normal! Call it beautiful! That's how silly the whole gay "I want to be married too, and only be called marriage too (as I kick my feet and scream)" thing is.

 

Dan, the teacher, doesn't wear a dress. That is Stan who wears the dress...Dan's Life Union partner who drives him to work.

But, even so, it is just the teaching you have a problem with?

You think dress wearing Stan and polo shirt/khaki pants wearing Dan - The Life Unioners - should be allowed to walk down your street holding hands? Or at the park? Or out shopping? Or the movies?

 

Not unless I can sue them civilly for damages and have some realistic expectation a settlement could be reached. Public display of gay affection is damaging to my impressionable youth, and warrants compensation.

 

Feel free to sue. That is between you and a judge or jury. But you will lose.

And after you lose, it is ok for them to walk hand in hand without any criminal punishment? Or should something beyond the civil legal system be considered? Like the criminal legal system?

 

Well, if it's ok for me to walk around with my wiener out without criminal penalty, then I supposed your scenario should be legal as well. What one considers obscene must only be in the eyes of the beholder I guess.

 

Holding hands = A Wiener Hanging Out is another topic for your analyst, I believe.

But I guess as long as you have the potential to get some money out of it from suing, it is apparently all ok to you anyway. You apparently see no need for it to be illegal then as long as you can sue.