D.C. moves closer to legalizing gay marriage

It is NOT a marriage

... we are talking about two people who are making a committment to each other, and deserve the full protection of the law, which now only recognizes marriage, not "partnership". How does this affect you?

Are nothing more than separate but "equal".

And we all know how well that worked out for African Americans.

gay marriage vs equal rights for an entire race of people.

get a clue fool...

You have offered two truly abhorrent notions here:

Legalizing gay marriage has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with "rights for an entire race of people."

You are categorizing gay people as a SEPARATE race.

Who ARE you?

1) Quoted from the article: "I am unwilling to live under the continued confines of a civil union law or a domestic partnership which needlessly and gratuitously says I am not the equal of everyone on this dais." -- Maybe i'm dumb, but i thought the entire purpose of civil union and domestic partnership laws was to protect the rights of gay couples and, basically, make them equal to non-gay, married couples. If my understanding of these laws is correct, that means, Mr. Councilwoman, that you want the title of marriage, not the inherent protections of being a member of a class (which is the guise you are using here).

2) I can't believe that DC did this after Vermont overrode the veto. I'm sure the battle in VT is not over, as the voters havent spoken and i dont think the state supreme court has either. DC, you might want to wait and see how this plays out before you jump out there trying to be like VT!

3) For a region that SOOOO badly wants state voting rights, can't you model your development after a better state than Vermont?? You've got to be kidding me!

1. So a separate but equal view under the law?
2. The voters elected their representatives to represent them, that's what they did. This has followed due process of law, the courts step in when that's not the case.
3. What exactly do you mean by a better state? What is a better state? What's wrong with Vermont?

1. Marriage is not a right, therefore, its not afforded any protection under the equal protection provision of the law. The foundation of your first point is false, therefore any argument on the point is a non sequitar.

2. Unless you havent paid attention, everyone sues these days. This decision in VT will likely cause litigation, which undoubtedly will escalate to the VT Supreme Court (unless its already happened i missed it. Because we are talking about a Legislative vs Executive battle here, i doubt thats the case). Also, Due Process is only one reason for the escalation of a court case.

3. I'll answer your question with a question: Whats right with Vermont? Can you name me one thing (other than the turning of the leaves in autumn) thats good about it?

1. "One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. "
- Cornell University Law School WEX (marriage)

2. Most states have a functioning government, the bill is vetoed by the house and the government moves on. A new bill may be presented but it must be submitted into committee, usually it takes quite a while, see Massachusetts.

3. Maple Syrup, Green Mountain Boys, Lake Champlain, Battle of Valcour Island, Burlington, lowest credit card debt rate in the nation and one of the lowest foreclosure rates, highly educated (named smartest state in 2005 & 2006), it has a government that is ranked high in performance compared to others (PEW 2008)...

Because you obviously don't listen to reason and have you agenda in clear view of all:

1. in 29 STATES, the VOTERS have spoken. These STATES have not defined or limited marriage as a civil union between man and woman. The VOTERS did this. Therefore, you argument, again, is starting from a false position in 29 of 50 states, without us even starting to look at some of the other ways these bans came about. Don't confuse laws past by state legislatures with state constitutional amendments voted into law by the will of the people!

2. You have totally failed to see what i'm talking about. Let go over basic civics. Legislative branch makes a law. Executive branch either signs in into action or sends it back. Once its made law (though signage or veto), judicial branch then determines if the law is constitutional (on many different grounds). Until the highest court in the land (in this case VT) decides to agree with the law, as written, the battle is not over (which is what i've said since my first post).

3. Monthly average temp in winter can be 7.7 degrees. It ranks 49th out of 50 states in terms of population (only beating Wyoming). It borders Quebec, so you have to deal with French Canadians quite often. No other state has a state capital as small as VT, nor is there another state whose largest city is as small as Burlington. I can keep going....

Is only that all persons in our nation are treated equally under just laws free from religious interference or prejudice. Since our law was built upon English Common Law, the exorcism of religion from it is a difficult struggle, however as a pluralist society no single religion can adequately guide our people.

Please understand, I don't hate religion, most are beautiful, but when intermingled with government even the most beautiful religious ideals can become ugly hollow shadows of their intent. It becomes a tool of control.

There are however guiding principles that I would hope we could find common ground on. I think there are inherently good principles that are common to all religions as well as built into the human mind. Building upon the basic, "don't cause harm, treat everyone fairly," innate laws, we should be able come to some sort of standerd by which we can all live.

Any additional standards, shall be put aside by the state and left to the religious communities to regulate as is fitting to those communities.

For a well written and thoughtful post.

While i can commend you for your post, i can still respectfully disagree with your position on gay marriage.

Now, can you please help Paul L out? He's in deperate need of teaching on logical and coherent debating.

And i apologize if any of my previous posts came across to you as disrespectful. I fear some of my frustration with Paul L bled over into my posts with you.

#1. Huh?

#3. VT has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the US. If the weather wasn't so cold, it would be high on my list of places to live.

A non sequitar is a non-starting. By starting the argument over "affording marriage rights to gays" we are starting from the assumption that marriage is a right. Its not. Therefore, the entire discussion on that point is based on a false premise and should not on any table for discussion.

Driving is not a right.
Health Insurance is not a right.
Marriage is not a right.

Voting is a right.
Free Speech is a right.
Protection from illegal search and seizure is a right.

Don't confuse the two categories.

The rights you list are enumerated in the constitution, yes, but you may want to check #9. I agree that driving and health insurance are not rights, but the choice of whom to spend your life with and commit yourself to before god and family? That strikes me a basic fundamental right. I understand that you are comfortable telling others who is acceptable for them to marry, and that you are comfortable having the government make that decision for people, but I'm not.

This article had nothing to do with "gay marriage", but DC "recognizing
" other state marriages.

Loved the quote from the mayor (who was not travelling for once) who said, "I don't know anything about it, but I am for gay marriage".

This is just another pitch to force everyone to accept your lifestyle choices.

I choose not to. Don't tell me what to believe.

I think it is you who is mad that the law is removing itself from the coercion of the christian faith. The Taliban and other religious extremists have shown how dangerous and degrading religion can be when in positions of power. When no religion is humanistic then all humans suffer under any theocracy.

If you wish marriage to remain a religious ceremony and union a civil then all joined persons shall be in a union in the eyes of the state, and you may be married according to your church.

I ask YOU not to tell ME what to believe.

Now you appear to be just rambling.

1. Our entire country's laws are based on religious principles. Christian princples. However, our forefathers new that the government could not favor one over another. THAT is basis of the separation of Church and State.

2. Are you equating Christianity with not being humanistic? I'm not sure that any of us truly follow your thoughts here...

3. I don't believe anyone in these posts has tried to tell you what to believe in. You can believe that pigs fly for all we care. But i can tell you that 30+ states in this country has BANNED gay-marriage. So who would be the person angry about that? Me or you?

1. So you are saying we are free to be Christian?

3. When you tell other people how to conduct their personal relationships, what label to use, and make a big stink about how they have to submit their personal life to you for approval, yes, yes you are. When gay people want to get married, they are just refusing to listen to you, not telling you what to do. Unless you are somehow confused and think they want you get a gay marriage of your very own.

1) You can be whatever religion you want. The foundation of our laws has nothing to do with your current belief system. Just don't think you can rewrite our entire foundation of laws based on your disagreement with one religious principle (and yes, i will admit this is a religious principle. Others may not agree with that statement, but i personally do believe the battle within this topic is almost purely one of religious beliefs).

#3. I didnt define the term MARRIAGE. Don't get your panties in a wad over something that was define by people that were voted into office by all of us. If you want to get mad at people, get mad at the majority of the voters in the United States (including liberal leaning California!) who oppose your position.

1. So I can be whatever religion I want, so long as I obey yours?

3. Hey, you can get a majority of the voters in california to agree on anything you want. Wrong is still wrong. It was wrong when the voters opposed interracial marriage. It was wrong when you supported prohibition.



Bad news, joe. My church recognises gay marriages. They have gay weddings, right there in the church, with gay people and everything. And all you can do is cry.

1. Can you not read? I said THE FOUNDATION OF OUR LAWS is based in Christianity. If you don't like that fact (just go study some history if don't believe me) go move to another country! I nor you can change American History! If you don't want to obey the laws of this land, i'm sure the powers that be can find a nice warm prison cell with a fat hairy guy names Bubba that will gladly marry you, in his own way!

3. Its only wrong when the Supreme Court tells us its wrong (or God depending on your view of things). Until that happens, you need to get over it.

P.S. I don't care what your church does. Its just like this conversation we're having: Its doesnt effect me and and once you leave that precious little church, it means nothing. Because the world outside those church doors has said your gay weddings is a sham and blight on humanity.

(i dont like being nasty like that, but good grief you have stupid, misplaced anger)

I have anger? You have threatened me with prison rape, told me to move to another country, and called me names, and I have stupid misplaced anger? Look in a mirror.

You did get one thing right. Gay marriage doesn't effect you. You cry and scream and oppose it, and it doesn't effect you. What is your problem with it? Why does it matter to you at all?

Its not over your opinions on gay marriage. And you're right: your opinions dont affect me at all.

What angers me is that you seem to fail to comprehend anything i write. I state a fact (our laws are based on Christian princples) and you attack me like i wrote them ("So I can be whatever religion I want, so long as I obey yours?")

What angers me is that you seem to think that someone, somewhere performing a gay marriage hurts my feelings or makes me cry ("Bad news, joe. My church recognises gay marriages. They have gay weddings, right there in the church, with gay people and everything. And all you can do is cry."). Reality is, in very few places are these even recognized marriages, so this is not even a blip on my radar screen.

What angers me is that i did not "threaten" you "with prison rape" or tell you "to move to another country". I tried to express my concern over the fact that in your earlier post you seemed to thumb you nose at the laws of this land and basic facts about its history. The fact that you twisted my comments to portray yourself as the victim is ridiculous. THATS what angers me.

What a lot of weasel words.

So, you are just stating a "fact" out of the blue. You don't support it, or intend it as support for anything you have said, or any position you may or may not hold. Just observing a fact. Just like you happened to observe that I could get sent to prison and share a cell with a bubba who will marry me in his own way. That's not a threat, it's just an amusing speculation, right? Weasel.

Is that the best you've got?

I shouldnt have to back up the statement that our country was founded on, and the basis of our legal system is rooted in, Christian principles. Do you remember elementary school history? What was the reason most of the pilgrims fled came to America? They were Protestants in a place where that was not the Government backed religion. So they established a land protecting their beliefs, while not establishing a state-backed religion. The fact i need to back that restatement of history to you amazes me!

And i thought the "Bubba in the jail cell" comments were kind of amusing actually.

Moron.

The pilgrims came to america because they couldn't practice their religion, yes, that is true, but incomplete. They were also Puritans. They came because they couldn't enforce their relgion on one another, or on their neighbors. Other groups came for similar reasons, with different subsets of christianity. One thing many of them agreed on was that the others were all heathens, not actual christians. They would have had you locked up for your religious beliefs in a heartbeat.

We have gotten away from religious law over the years. Even christian religious law. You may not like that, but I happen to think it's a good thing.


And the weasel words are when you say somthing, like the bubba comment, and then try to pretend it's something else. Either threaten me or don't. Either tell me to get out, or don't. But have the guts to stand behind it.

Let me quote you here....
"It was wrong when you supported prohibition."

How old do think i am??

And i don't cry. Not even for gay weddings.

English Common law is based on Catholicism (before the Anglican split) should we make condoms illegal?

I'd say absolutely not. In fact, i'm all for sex education in the classroom, as it would more than likely cut down on STD's and unplanned pregnancies. I believe that doing anything different is a failure on us with the consequences passed on to our children.

So you only supprt laws based on YOUR religion? Why should all of us follow laws based on YOUR religion? The catholics have just as much reason to inflict their condom law on you, as you have to inflict your marriage laws on everyone else.

Catholics DONT approve of the use of condoms. Why would Catholics "inflict their condom law" on me?

And, for the LAST TIME, I DIDN'T MAKE a single marriage law. I DIDNT DEFINE marriage. I HAPPEN TO AGREE with the definition of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Plus, last time i checked, the Catholic Church doesnt pass any laws. Thats Congress's job.

And finally, you have no idea what my religious principles are, other than i am not Catholic (which i did post earlier).

I think you need to take a reading course and a life.

The catholic condom law would be a prohibition, not a mandate.

I know you didn't make the law. But you support it. Why does it matter to you what the gays do or how they conduct their lives? What business is it of yours?

You brought up religion. Its not the church. It is written in the book under gods law. Government means nothing in the end. It says it. As you posted earlier. Interracal marraige falls under the same law. Its not aloud under gods law. Believe what you want. Its there in the beginning of the old testement. Just letting you know.

... Nobody is trying to force you to accept anyone else's lifestyle. They just want to enjoy their own lives without some santimonious busybody interfering.

You certainly are brainy.

Yes, they ARE trying to get us to accept homosexuality as 'normal', which it isn't.

They can enjoy whatever they want, but they aren't happy with the things they do, and want to change society to fit themselves.

Try again.
I am in No Way dumb.
By using the word "legalize" it is a forced acceptance.

When something is legalized, I must accept it as the norm.
Wrong Answer.
I should not have to be complicit with, agree with, accept, acknowledge, support, defend or even be made aware of your lifestyle choice.

And what is a santimonious?

we all know............. WTOP pitches and catches..............

Same sex marrage sickens me, and it is against my beliefs.
Having said this, this is America and I have to respect the rights of those who choose this life syle. But as well they should have to respect my beliefs.
I do not agree that it should be defined as marriage, nor do I believe that my children should be subject to public displays of affection for this kind of union.
With this being said have a nice life.

Are you saying it is OK for straight couples to display affection in public, but not gay couples?

Are any couple that involves a really hot chick! :)

(felt the need to lighten the mood some here!)

What if its 2 really hot chicks? Would that make things any different?

yes.

There was once a time when an interracial couple could not show affection in public now, nobody notices it. it is a part of our world now and someday so will same sex couples. and we will shrug it off as nothing.

YES

I don't want to hear about homos anymore. ENOUGH!

If you support this I will have you banned from the Moose Lodge and the hunting club. Honestly, I don't know how your wife puts up with you.

I hope Jim Graham doesn't biatche slap you into the next state for that slanderous comment!

Just trying to seem sensitive for the ladies.

A real swordsman.

This cow already left the barn folks. Gay marriage may be offensive to some, but it will happen. Like with the end of slavery and the woman’s right to vote, the clock cannot be turned back. Life goes on.

I'm not sure if you meant this, but pairing slavery and marriage together is priceless! At least to those of us who have been divorced before!

you made me spew my coffee after reading that. I still can't stop laughing!

Gay marraige will never happen. Get over it. Be gay if you want to. I dont care. But you will never put yourself in the same type of marraige as straight couples. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

"This is a right that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens," Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) says.

Sorta like the 2nd amendment which is a right this country is founded on? Or are you just being selectively convenient for getting that populist vote?

Think the tide will turn on your opinion soon?

Think you can continue to flaunt the US Constitution yet become a state?

You are not allowed to use logic and the DC Council in the same story. Not allowed!

Like the old joke says, let them gay folks get married. Why should the straight guys be the only ones to be miserable?

Yep and let's slap them with the marriage tax penalty.

Pun intended, is getting warmed up over this story. Bwahahahaha!
I dare ya to tag this post. Coward.

Facinating turn of events!

The heterosexual community is the community that for years, has been screaming about how "marriage is a prison". How many times have we heard statements such as "who needs marriage when someone loves someone?"

The famous femnist statement is "marriage is a plot by the men to subjigate women. We as women must overthrow the yoke of male opression".

And on the LTA (Living Together Arrangement) how many times have we heard what Planned Parenthood and America's youth has told us and told us and told us? ...."Everybody's doing it"

These days it is the GAYS who are the ones believing in marriage and are bringing back the idea that marriage is not such a terrible thing after all.

Since the heterosexuals are against marriage and the gays are for marriage, why not ban marriage for heterosexuals and allow it only for gays.

When it comes to marriage, women want a relationship while all the men want is sex. Yes, sex, you guys! So, a man and a woman will marry, but for different reasons with the whole thing often ending in divorce. So, is marriage what gay people really want?

the main reason gays and lesbians want to marry is to have the
same legal rights afforded to married couples. Think about it. My partner and I are together 13 years now. We have no inheritance rights, no social security rights or pension rights, no hospital visitation rights, etc. I believe there are over 1300 legal rights afforded to legally married couples. While it's true that some of these things can be taken care of by wills, power of attorney and other legal papers, legal marriage comes with many more rights and privileges just be signing the marriage certificate. Why should I have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to make sure that my partner is taken care of if I should die (or get gay bashed as it seems many in this forum are capable of)?

I keep saying that I don't care what we call it as long as the marriage contract is legally the same and comes with identical rights. In fact, I think the states should stop using the term marriage altogether. If at the legal level, everyone received a civil union, then people could go to their churches for a marriage before whatever god they believe in.

It will work wonders regardless of sexual orientation.

Go figure, I'm married, and paid a lawyer for a will.

Besides, my Senator (Cardin) said that ALL contracts are live (just as he thinks the constitution is) and therefore ALWAYS open to interpretation thoughout it's duration, so really no real protection to get that license.

and I don't know how this guys pension fund works, but i can leave my pension to whomever i choose. I just have to fill out the paperwork and its done.

What they can't get are Social Security benefits for a surviving 'spouse', but lets be real, unless some huge changes are made to that system, it wont be around for anybody to debate over anyway!

With very few exceptions, marriage between a man and a woman is pure hell.., thus the high divorce rate., but if marriage is what gays wants, they are insane.

Why anyone with any sense would want to willingly subject themselves to the 'marriage tax penalty'!!

I'm beginning to wonder if gay people championing marriage are only thinking with their genitals.

I have been a non smoker for 4 week's. Seems to me the government has went far beyond what it should have in reguards to smoking rules.
Before you hit the Offtopic button pleas read!
I can understand banning smoking in public places where non smokers do not have a choice. But to say an owner of an establishment can not have the right to decide what they want, by posting a sign to non smokers that have the choice not to answer.

I take this the same way with civil unions. We cannot keep them from their choice. As I said above this is America. But at the same time we cannot force insurance companies, hospitols and other places to cater to them.

Example: Why shoul Eharmony have to provide a service that is against their belief?
As well, If it is a orthodox run hospitol, that does not except homosecuality in their religion, who is it to say that government has the right to tell them what they can and can except?
I believe this would catagorise under seperation of church and state.

I am sorry while I have to admit we all should have freedom of choice which way you swing. In know way should any one be forced to have to alter their own way of life for it...

To many errors, in a hurry but you should get my point.

We can force businesses to run their business in certain ways. If insurance companies recognize marriages, they have to recognize them all. Hospitals have to follow mountains of regulations about how they handle family members, and they don't get to determine which family relationships they approve of.

Although I do think the e-harmony thing went a little far.

Is DECIDEDLY anti-American and very anti-capitalistic.

I believe the Nazi's dictated rules that everyone had to follow. So do most dictatorships. I think you need to watch out for the slippery slope your standing on. It can lead to some nasty unintended consequences!

I hate it when they don't let the deli down the road serve me spoiled mayo. Oh no, how aweful. And the thing where I have to actually pay my employees for working, that's so mean. I shouldn't have to follow rules. I can do anything I want! I am king of the world!



Google "godwins law". You lose.

So now you've gone to using health code enforcement and labor laws to bolster your position? Is that all you've got?

You can't state "the government can force (fill in the blank) to accept gay marriage/couples etc" and then equate that with public health and safety rules and labor laws.

What an idiot.

your Nazi reference was pretty kooky.

Businesses in this country have to follow thousands of laws including many equal rights laws. Does that make us Nazis? Hardly.

Off my rocker? You tell us that the government can't force business to "follow an agenda" by regulating how they do business and I'm off my rocker? The government tells business what to do every single day. From health code to tax law to how to administer benefits right down to banning smoking.

But it's too late, you brought up the NAZIs, you lost the arguement.

between FORCING an agenda and ENFORCING health and safety. If you can understand that, then we have nothing further to discuss.

You have posed some insightful questions here. However, publicly, non-profit hospitals, and publicly owned insurance companies shouldn't put "morals clauses" into the degree of care they provide. For religious or private instututions, they can pick and choose.

You missed the 'pharmacies must provide morning after pills' even if the owner has religious beliefs that say they shouldn't.

So even PRIVATE businesses are being FORCED to do things that their OWNERS think are morally wrong.

That's the price of doing business. Again, you cite the instance of a nosey busybody pitting his or her attitude before the health of another person. The deeply "moralistic" need to beware of God's injunction against overweening pride.

I didn't cite any instances previously.

You said "For religious or private instututions, they can pick and choose. "

Was that a lie? The customer COULD have gone to another Pharmacy, but NO, she demanded that a particular store fill her order.

So my instance quoted here was in fact quite correct.

And you were in fact, completely wrong, both times.

Talk about overweening pride, take a look in your mirror.

I'd like to know at what age is was that you made the choice to be a hetero? Did you weigh the idea of being gay vs being straight and then decide that straight was the way for you? What age were when you made that choice?

Seriously man! If you yourself never had to choose your heterosexuality, then the same thing applies to homosexuals. One's sexuality identity is something that one is born with. One can "choose" to act differently differently but that does not change what one is attracted to. I could choose to get married and have children but I would never be happy, nor would I be true to what God made me and certainly would not be true to the woman I married or to the kids I produced.

At 12, to lust after women.

Now, what age did you choose to be a homosexual?

I was hooked around 5.......was it the poet..."Cool and the Gang" or the poet " Bad Company" who did...."Can't get enough....."

Now please respond to my question, When did you decide you were gay?

Looks like we're both out of luck.

Homosexual behavior is a symptom or is a form of mental illness and its not nice to make fun of or abuse sick people.

You are not only as dumb as Haitch, you are evil.

Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.
If you desire to change any of that, simply create your own form of union and give it a name.
Marriage is already taken...

Your brain was already taken by the religious right from Mars, I guess.

Have to do with the topic at hand? Stay on topic or i'll call your mommy and have her tuck you early tonight.

I am retired military and in my career I learned to respect my gay fellow servicemen and gay servicewomen., and of all ranks. They were true professionals always giving 110 percent serving this great country of ours with honor and distinction., and while I may not share in their sexual preference, I always render them a smart military salute. These folks earned their full civil rights and are no less of a citizen just because they are different.

Some of my best friends in this world happen to be gay. I think sometimes people get so caught up in their opinion or agenda or position that they lose sight of that. This topic should be a thoughtful debate, but too often people let their own emotional leakage get into the conversation and let the conversation turn personal. Once that happens, the debate is lost for all parties.

Sure, there are a lot of great gay people and personally I could care less who does and doesn't get married (gay or straight). However, it is mathematically impossible for anyone, no matter how gay, to give more than 100%.

Sorry, I know that's off-topic but, I have to have some objective unchanging concepts to anchor myself to in this crazy, crazy world of ours.

Our government should side step a non-issue like giving special privileges to gay people. The vast majority of constituents see this issue as either:

a.) Unimportant

b.) Laughable

c.) Disgusting

With so many more pressing matters on the table, I would hope that my government is not going to squander a moment of time on working on stuff like giving special privileges to a bunch of (FILL IN BLANK HERE).

We can see your attitude as
a) unimportant
b) laughable
c) disgusting

You were on track with the fact that there are far more pressing issues, but, face it, the uber religious right held pressing issues hostage way too long.

Too bad you had to spoil your comment with the (FILL IN THE BLANK).

to respect one's lifestyle but not matrimony between two of the same sex? I am almost afraid to ask that question since it will be immediately mistaken as discrimination which I absolutley abhor. I know I can't win on this even though I truly do respect ones' right to spend their lives with whom they choose but marriage I am sorry I don't think that is best since it has always been a union between a man and a woman and that is what the bible says right?

Orlando, the last part of what you said is the key. We are not a christian nation, we may have be a nation of christians, but there is a division that must be upheld. Our laws need to be based on what is sound principle for the people of this land, not on what is dictated by any religion. When you really think about it, and truly remove all religious bias from your mind, can you think of any good reason why marriage cannot be applied to any two people who wish to live the rest of their lives as a single entity in the eyes of the state?

As far as history, acceptance has always waxed and waned, sometimes it was as normal as rain, and sometimes it could get you stoned. There are anthropological roots in population growth. We have examined it scientifically, found biological and genetic origins, and found similar variation throughout the animal kingdom. All evidence points to it providing some sort of species benefit but exactly what is not yet pinpointed. We are more mature scientifically and socially and so we must act accordingly.

Unfortunately the stigma and shame of hiding homosexuality has long lead to a culture of self-hatred. This begins to show itself in increased suicide, risky behavior, depression, alcoholism, and so on. Much of this comes from a message from the Christian/Jewish/Muslim world of "you are an abomination."

Why are these people an abomination? What evil are they perpetuating? Their only crime is wanting to live in a loving relationship with the person that they naturally desire. Their only real crime is being in a society whose moral code is based on a religion that found itself outnumbered in its early history and therefore promoted reproduction and condemned acts that were not conducive to population growth.

We need to grow up and think about what is best for us as a people, a society, a species, and a planet. We don't need a booming voice to tell us what is right and wrong, we are all capable of contemplating the effects of our actions.

The US is still creating itself, it is still trying to achieve that more perfect union. One in which all men are created equal, I'm thankful we continue to progress towards that goal.

The bible is a wonderful book of history and guidance, but must be understood for the era in which its passages were included (or excluded). Once was, there was a need to increase population in order to create growing communities that could feed and defend themselves. Therefore, a "marriage" or agreement that would prevent the expectation of children was denounced. Also, you will find in the bible that women should not wear clothes that "divide the legs" (no knickers, ladies), and men should not spill their seed upon the ground.

Somebody legislate for me!

Is there really so much love in the world that you feel it's OK for someone else to tell you who the object of your affections should be?

Lifestyle choice? Please, who's going to "choose" a life of job discrimination, rejection by your own armed forces, & denial of the benefits of family? And that's the good news. How about "gay bashing", & being the butt of all those awful jokes?

No gay is asking for special priveleges. They want the same privelege granted to everyone else, marriage.

Remember Family Values? Typical conservative hypocrisy. Family values for everyone, except homosexuals. (Don't forget military service except for women, "right to work" except for immigrants, "equal justice under law" unless you're rich, etc).

Some of you lack any comprehension of the term "consenting adults". It shows up in your posts.

Haven't seen any scientific evidence that it's not.

1. ^ American Psychological Association Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality -

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

2. ^ "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. May 2000. http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210.

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

3. ^ "Sexual Orientation and Adolescents" (PDF), American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1827.pdf, retrieved on 2007-02-23
4. ^ "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality", American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html, retrieved on 2007-05-04
5. ^ a b c LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge: The MIT Press ISBN 0-262-12199-9
6. ^ a b This work was published in the American Journal of Sociology (Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002) Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 107, 1179–1205.) and is available only to subscribers. However, a final draft of the paper is available here - there are no significant differences on the points cited between the final draft and the published version.
7. ^ While inconsistent with modern findings, the first relatively large-scale twin study on sexual orientation was reported by Kallman in 1952. (See: Kallmann FJ (April 1952). "Comparative twin study on the genetic aspects of male homosexuality". J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 115 (4): 283–97. PMID 14918012. ). Examining only male twin pairs, he found a 100% concordance rate for homosexuality among 37 monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs, compared to a 12%-42% concordance rate among 26 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs, depending on definition. In other words, every identical twin of a homosexual subject was also homosexual, while this was not the case for non-identical twins. This study was criticised for its vaguely described method of recruiting twins and for a high rate of psychiatric disorders among its subjects. (See Rosenthal, D., "Genetic Theory and Abnormal Behavior" 1970, New York: McGraw-Hill.)
8. ^ Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Quoted in Bearman and Bruckner, 2002.
9. ^ cited in Wilson and Rahman 2005, p47
10. ^ Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG (March 2000). "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample". J Pers Soc Psychol 78 (3): 524–36. PMID 10743878. http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/78/3/524.
11. ^ Långström, Niklas; Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein. (7 June 2008). Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behaviour: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behaviour. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986.
12. ^ Schacter, Daniel L., Gilbert, Daniel T., and Wegner, Daniel M. (2009) "Psychology". Worth Publishers: 435.
13. ^ Gringas, P. and Chen, W. (2001). Mechanisms for difference in monozygous twins. Early Human Development, 64, (2), 105-117.
14. ^ Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and Behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
15. ^ Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AM (July 1993). "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science (journal) 261 (5119): 321–7. doi:10.1126/science.8332896. PMID 8332896. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8332896.
16. ^ Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, et al (November 1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.
17. ^ a b Wilson, G.D., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born Gay: The Biology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen Publishers.
18. ^ Vilain E (2000). "Genetics of sexual development". Annu Rev Sex Res 11: 1–25. PMID 11351829.
19. ^ Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation" (PDF). Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181. http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf.
20. ^ a b Bocklandt S, Horvath S, Vilain E, Hamer DH (February 2006). "Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men". Hum. Genet. 118 (6): 691–4. doi:10.1007/s00439-005-0119-4. PMID 16369763. http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1413.
21. ^ a b Blanchard R, Klassen P (April 1997). "H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men". J. Theor. Biol. 185 (3): 373–8. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0315. PMID 9156085.
22. ^ Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
23. ^ Blanchard R (1997). "Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females". Annu Rev Sex Res 8: 27–67. PMID 10051890.
24. ^ Camperio-Ciani et al. 2004
25. ^ Lalumière ML, Blanchard R, Zucker KJ (July 2000). "Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: a meta-analysis". Psychol Bull 126 (4): 575–92. PMID 10900997. http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/126/4/575.
26. ^ Savic I, Berglund H, Lindström P (May 2005). "Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (20): 7356–61. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407998102. PMID 15883379.
27. ^ Wade, Nicholas. (May 9, 2005). "Gay Men Are Found to Have Different Scent of Attraction." New York Times.
28. ^ Swaab DF, Hofman MA (December 1990). "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men". Brain Res. 537 (1-2): 141–8. PMID 2085769. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0006-8993(90)90350-K.
29. ^ Allen LS, Gorski RA (August 1992). "Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (15): 7199–202. PMID 1496013. PMC: 49673. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1496013.
30. ^ a b c d e LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (PDF). Science (journal) 253 (5023): 1034–7. doi:10.1126/science.1887219. PMID 1887219. http://members.aol.com/slevay/hypothalamus.pdf.
31. ^ Van Wyk PH, Geist CS (1995). "Biology of bisexuality: critique and observations". J Homosex 28 (3-4): 357–73. doi:10.1300/J082v28n03_11. PMID 7560936.
32. ^ a b Byne W, Tobet S, Mattiace LA, et al (September 2001). "The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status". Horm Behav 40 (2): 86–92. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2001.1680. PMID 11534967.
33. ^ Sex and the Brain | Sex & the Brain | DISCOVER Magazine
34. ^ Bem DJ, Herdt G, McClintock M (December 2000). "Exotic becomes erotic: interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation". Arch Sex Behav 29 (6): 531–48. PMID 11100261. http://www.kluweronline.com/art.pdf?issn=0004-0002&volume=29&page=531. PDF
35. ^ Bailey, J.M., and Zucker, K.J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31(1): 43-55.
36. ^ Zucker, K.J. (2005) Commentary on Gottschalk’s (2003) ‘Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-conformity: A spurious connection’ Journal of Gender Studies, 14:55–60.
37. ^ Zucker, K.J. (1990) Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history. p.1-23 in R. Blanchard & B.W. Steiner (eds) Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults. Washington DC, American Psychiatric Press.
38. ^ Green R (January 1979). "Childhood cross-gender behavior and subsequent sexual preference". Am J Psychiatry 136 (1): 106–8. PMID 758811. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=758811.
39. ^ Cohen-Kettenis PT (April 2001). "Gender identity disorder in DSM?". J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40 (4): 391. PMID 11314563. http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?issn=0890-8567&volume=40&issue=4&spage=391.
40. ^ Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2001) Gender identity disorder in DSM? [Letter to the editor], Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, p. 391. and comments reported in: Zucker, K.J. (2005) Commentary on Gottschalk’s (2003) ‘Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-conformity: A spurious connection’ Journal of Gender Studies, 14:55–60.
41. ^ a b Crain, C. "Did a Germ Make You Gay?" in Out Magazine, August 1999.
42. ^ An Evolutionary Look at Human Homosexuality Greg Cochran, original publication date unknown
43. ^ http://www.apaonline.org/apa/publications/newsletters/v00n1/lgbt/04.asp
44. ^ http://www.apaonline.org/apa/publications/newsletters/v00n1/lgbt/04.asp -

Despite some degree of logical plausibility, there is ultimately very little to be said in favor of these contentions. In its focus on the reduced reproductive rates of homosexual men and women, the account ignores other mechanisms by which genetic traits endure across generations. More importantly, the account is offered without any evidence whatsoever about which microbe might work how to generate homosexual interests. A peer-reviewed science journal turned this account away, but it nevertheless found its way into the pages of the public press.... the ease with which theories of homosexuality seep into public discourse raises important ethical questions about the way in which researchers ought to communicate their various theories to the public. Given that an unfounded theory of homosexuality can do more damage than good, researchers should raise the bar in regard to the views they propound about its origin.

45. ^ a b Crain, C. "Did a Germ Make You Gay?" in Out Magazine, August 1999 :

On the one hand, William Byne, a brain researcher at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, suspects that Cochran and Ewald are guilty of pathologizing homosexuality. "It's hard for most people to entertain the idea that homosexuality might be a natural variant of human sexual behavior," says Byne. On the other hand, Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, gives Cochran and Ewald the benefit of the doubt. Bailey does worry that homophobes could use the germ theory as political ammunition—as "proof" that homosexuality is a disease. But that would be "a totally illegitimate conclusion," in Bailey's opinion. Not everything caused by a germ is a disease, he insists. "Suppose we found that a form of genius was also caused by a virus. Would that mean that genius is a disease?"

46. ^ Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p598.
47. ^ How homosexuality may have evolved
48. ^ Zietsch, B., Morley, K., Shekar, S., Verweij, K., Keller, M., Macgregor, S., et al. (2008, November). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 424-433. Retrieved April 1, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.002
49. ^ Scans see 'gay brain differences' - BBC News
50. ^ http://www.dafml.unito.it/anatomy/panzica/pubblicazioni/pdf/1995PanzicaJEI.pdf
51. ^ Swaab DF, Zhou JN, Ehlhart T, Hofman MA (1994). "Development of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide neurons in the human suprachiasmatic nucleus in relation to birth and sex". Brain Res. Dev. Brain Res. 79 (2): 249–59. PMID 7955323.
52. ^ Allen LS, Gorski RA (1992). "Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (15): 7199–202. PMID 1496013.
53. ^ Lasco, M. S., Jordan, T. J., Edgar, M. A., Petito, C. K., & Byne, W. (2002). A lack of dimorphism of sex or sexual orientation in the human anterior commissure. Brain Research, 936, 95–98.
54. ^ Bogaert AF, Hershberger S (1999). "The relation between sexual orientation and penile size". Arch Sex Behav 28 (3): 213–21. doi:10.1023/A:1018780108597. PMID 10410197.
55. ^ Kinnunen LH, Moltz H, Metz J, Cooper M (2004). "Differential brain activation in exclusively homosexual and heterosexual men produced by the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine". Brain Res. 1024 (1-2): 251–4. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2004.07.070. PMID 15451388.
56. ^ a b McFadden D (2002). "Masculinization effects in the auditory system". Arch Sex Behav 31 (1): 99–111. doi:10.1023/A:1014087319682. PMID 11910797.
57. ^ Rahman Q, Kumari V, Wilson GD (2003). "Sexual orientation-related differences in prepulse inhibition of the human startle response". Behav. Neurosci. 117 (5): 1096–102. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.5.1096. PMID 14570558.
58. ^ Safron A, Barch B, Bailey JM, Gitelman DR, Parrish TB, Reber PJ (2007). "Neural correlates of sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men". Behav. Neurosci. 121 (2): 237–48. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.237. PMID 17469913.
59. ^ Martins Y, Preti G, Crabtree CR, Runyan T, Vainius AA, Wysocki CJ (2005). "Preference for human body odors is influenced by gender and sexual orientation". Psychol Sci 16 (9): 694–701. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01598.x. PMID 16137255.
60. ^ http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
61. ^ Savic I, Berglund H, Gulyas B, Roland P (2001). "Smelling of odorous sex hormone-like compounds causes sex-differentiated hypothalamic activations in humans". Neuron 31 (4): 661–8. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00390-7. PMID 11545724.
62. ^ Savic I, Berglund H, Lindström P (2005). "Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (20): 7356–61. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407998102. PMID 15883379.
63. ^ Berglund H, Lindström P, Savic I (2006). "Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (21): 8269–74. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600331103. PMID 16705035.
64. ^ Brown WM, Hines M, Fane BA, Breedlove SM (2002). "Masculinized finger length patterns in human males and females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia". Horm Behav 42 (4): 380–6. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2002.1830. PMID 12488105.
65. ^ Hines M, Johnston KJ, Golombok S, Rust J, Stevens M, Golding J (2002). "Prenatal stress and gender role behavior in girls and boys: a longitudinal, population study". Horm Behav 42 (2): 126–34. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2002.1814. PMID 12367566.
66. ^ Rahman Q, Wilson GD (2003). "Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger length ratio: evidence for organising effects of sex hormones or developmental instability?". Psychoneuroendocrinology 28 (3): 288–303. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(02)00022-7. PMID 12573297.
67. ^ Brown WM, Finn CJ, Cooke BM, Breedlove SM (2002). "Differences in finger length ratios between self-identified "butch" and "femme" lesbians". Arch Sex Behav 31 (1): 123–7. doi:10.1023/A:1014091420590. PMID 11910785.
68. ^ Hall LS, Love CT (2003). "Finger-length ratios in female monozygotic twins discordant for sexual orientation". Arch Sex Behav 32 (1): 23–8. doi:10.1023/A:1021837211630. PMID 12597269.
69. ^ Lalumière ML, Blanchard R, Zucker KJ (2000). "Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: a meta-analysis". Psychol Bull 126 (4): 575–92. PMID 10900997.
70. ^ Mustanski BS, Bailey JM, Kaspar S (2002). "Dermatoglyphics, handedness, sex, and sexual orientation". Arch Sex Behav 31 (1): 113–22. doi:10.1023/A:1014039403752. PMID 11910784.
71. ^ Lippa RA (2003). "Handedness, sexual orientation, and gender-related personality traits in men and women". Arch Sex Behav 32 (2): 103–14. doi:10.1023/A:1022444223812. PMID 12710825.
72. ^ Hepper PG, Shahidullah S, White R (1991). "Handedness in the human fetus". Neuropsychologia 29 (11): 1107–11. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(91)90080-R. PMID 1775228.
73. ^ Geoff Sanders, Ph.D. and Marian Wright, B.Sc.(1997), Sexual Orientation Differences in Cerebral Asymmetry and in the Performance of Sexually Dimorphic Cognitive and Motor Tasks
74. ^ GSS data on verbal performance of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual males and females
75. ^ McCormick CM, Witelson SF (1991). "A cognitive profile of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men and women". Psychoneuroendocrinology 16 (6): 459–73. PMID 1811244.
76. ^ Rahman Q, Abrahams S, Wilson GD (2003). "Sexual-orientation-related differences in verbal fluency". Neuropsychology 17 (2): 240–6. PMID 12803429.
77. ^ Gladue, B. A., W. W. Beatty, et al. (1990). "Sexual orientation and spatial ability in men and women." Psychobiology 18: 101-108.
78. ^ Neave N, Menaged M, Weightman DR (1999). "Sex differences in cognition: the role of testosterone and sexual orientation". Brain Cogn 41 (3): 245–62. doi:10.1006/brcg.1999.1125. PMID 10585237.
79. ^ Rahman Q, Wilson GD, Abrahams S (2003). "Sexual orientation related differences in spatial memory". J Int Neuropsychol Soc 9 (3): 376–83. doi:10.1017/S1355617703930037. PMID 12666762.
80. ^ The Advocate (1996, February 6). Advocate Poll Results. p. 8.
81. ^ Ernulf KE, Innala SM, Whitam FL (December 1989). "Biological explanation, psychological explanation, and tolerance of homosexuals: a cross-national analysis of beliefs and attitudes". Psychol Rep 65 (3 Pt 1): 1003–10. PMID 2608821.
82. ^ Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals' attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369-377.
83. ^ a b c What Makes People Gay? By Neil Swidey. The Boston Globe. Published August 14, 2005.
84. ^ Card, Orson Scott (August 7, 2008). "Science on gays falls short". Deseret Morning News. http://www.mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1702.
85. ^ Myths About Queer by Choice People. Queer by Choice. Accessed March 6, 2009.
86. ^ Homosexuality and Biology. By Chandler Burr. The Atlantic Monthly. June 2007.

I had to tag your post offensive. Its incredibly too long. If i wanted a college course on human sexuality, i'd sign up for one at the university just down from my house.

Probably got some good scientific info in there based on all the citations though....

said anything close to 'Homosexuality is genetic' or 'homosexuality is NOT a choice.'

These.

Thanks for the list.

how many "religious" people are so obsessed with sex.

And I did NOT mention GOD or religion at all.

So you assumed, wrongly.

How normal for you.

... wonderful post.

It's echoes you own sentiments.

It's profoundly upsetting to those of us who are practicing Christians. In order to justify your hateful beliefs, you "professing" Christians always, always, always must turn to the Old Testament. We who practice Christianity prefer the teachings of Jesus found in the New Testament.

Forced to go to the New Testament, you "professors" usually turn to some vague, off topic quote from Paul or Revelations. You can't quote Jesus without exposing yourselves for what you are.

Go ahead, try.

Liberals gone wild

just about everything possble on this earth that doesn't look like him or act like him. This guy has some real issues as evidenced by his constant barrage of anti-black and anti-gay comments.

and as such any law regarding marriage would have to conform with the Federal Definition of marriage.

As long as the gay marriages the District intends to recognize consists of one man and one woman it will meet the Federal definition of marriage.

try Ms. Rosey Palm.

not Adam and Steve.

Amen.

a fairytale. Get real!

Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself? That's the funniest thing I ever read. I'm going to show it to my gay friends, and I'm sure it will turn them instantly straight. I'd better have some women handy, they will some hetersexual relief once the read your insightful contribution and realize what they have been missing out on all their lives.

I will spend the rest of the day in silent meditation on the truths you have revealed to me with this astonishing comment.

Multiple spouses within a single marriage?

The woman whose Chimp attacked her friend took baths with that monkey.

Funny, I've never seen 2 roosters hanging around together....

They will now have to legalize polygamy, child marriage, goat marriage, etc. all in the name of "equality". K-Y makes the slope very slippery indeed.

It's okay though. Everyone keep doing whatever the heck you feel. Don't let silly concepts like morality, decency, and goodness get in your way. And if you turn out to be wrong and there is such a thing as judgment day, well, at least you had some fun right?

Are you proud being up there?

Pediphilia & bestiality contravene the concept of "consenting adults". Until you get this clear in your mind, you'll continue to abuse adults for their personal choices, & for being born with traits you don't like.

Abuse of children & animals is, & should always be, against the law. It's a shame we can't extend the same protection responsible adults.

... don't go too far. You sound stupid.

Why cant i have more than one spouse? Because marriage is defined (in the vast majority of all states) as union between 1 man and 1 woman. As soon as you start tinkering with the definition, you start inviting other subsets of the population to bring their own definitions to the table.

I don't see a problem with more than one spouse. It's in the bible, after all. Plenty of it in the bible, it's monogamy that is unusual in that book.

It does substantially alter the contract though. If marriage includes tangible benefits, it adds cost to recognize more than one spouse. Some of those benefits should be extended to all spouses, such as hospital visitation, but others would need to be controlled with more thought, such as employer health insurance. I would also wonder how the marriage tax penalty would be handled in such a situation. That's more a question of details though.

When you argue against people doing things that have no victim, I just don't get it. Incest has a victim. Age limits are there to protect the young. You can't marry anyone (or anything) incapable of giving consent. But if the people give consent, and aren't going to produce babies with flippers and gills, who the [oh no super bad word] cares? If they happen to be gay, or if there's three or four people who want to share their lives together or whatever? What business is it of yours?

However, age is relative to several issues: Community standards and the era you are discussing. 70 years ago, it was not uncommon for 14 year olds to get married. In rural, farming communities it was much more accepted practice than in urban cities. Which opinion was correct then?

Consent laws are another interesting thing you bring up. Did you know that the age of consent is different based on the state you're in? Some say 16, some 18. It all depends on,*gasp* community and state standards.

Marriage is another thing that governed by the states themselves. Sure there are possible civil rights issues (specifically as it related to interracial marriages), but its still something thats governed by the states themselves. Just like driver's licenses and gun licenses.

If the majority of the states do not want to recognize gay marriages, you will only alienate those people by 'forcing' your belief on them.

And if there is no crime (as this is 'victimless') why are gay 'rights' activists so up in arms? Truly, if no one cares, why are we even having the discussion? Because you can't change the community (or state) standards and legal definitions without impacting everyone in the community. Kind of a Buddhist philosophy there....

Yes, the exact age varies, and has varied over time. I don't see a problem with that. The amount of responsibility and independance we have given people at different ages has varied, and we just don't have an objective standard for the ability to consent. But the exact age is a detail. We all agree that 10 is too young and 21 is old enough, and somewhere in between there's a line.

There is no victim when two people of the same gender get married. There is a victim when you tell two people who are capable of giving consent that they can't enjoy the 1000+ benefits that other married people have.

How does it impact you that adam and steve get married? They will be living together, kissing each other, sharing a bank account, regardless. They will have a wedding ceremony in their church even if the state government doesn't recognise it. But if Steve gets in a car wreck and dies in the hospital, how does it impact you that Adam is next to him at his deathbed? Can you explain that to me?

"They will be living together, kissing each other, sharing a bank account, regardless."

If they are going to be doing this regardless, why do they insist on changing the definition of MY GROUP (married people)? Why can't they just petition to expand what should be covered under civil unions or make a new term? Why must gay couples steal, twist and contort what's mine? If you can answer that, without going to the separate but equal argument please do so.

By the way, we live in a separate but equal society. Poor people have the same right to vote as the wealthy. But we all know whose 'voice' carries more weight.

Kids in inner cities traditionally have poorer performing schools, while suburban kids typically get an education. But the access is there and we know the differences exist.

I can name others like this. And we as a society are ok with them. Why should your circumstance be viewed any differently?

"Why can't they just petition to expand what should be covered under civil unions or make a new term?"

Because the people opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to gay civil unions. Because all those benefits are only provided by "marriage". If they were actually equal, I wouldn't have any opposition, but civil unions are just sort of similar, not equal, and they are banned in most of the anti-gay marriage states. Are you saying you support civil unions with all the privileges and benefits of marriage, differing only in name?

"Why must gay couples steal, twist and contort what's mine?"

I still don't get how it affects you. I've been married twice, this time for 8 years, and I don't see how any else's marriage affects mine.

Your comment "Because the people opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to gay civil unions" is false.

At least in my case, I would have no problem with removing the word 'marriage' from civil law, and replacing it with civil unions. And allowing homosexuals to join in them.

I've been married only once, still am.

Perhaps you don't value marriage the same as myself, that's why you see what you see, and I see what I see.

Celebrate MY difference from YOU as much as you celebrate YOUR difference from me.

If you support actual equality, good for you. It makes you a bit unusual though. Here in VA, a lot people who thought they were opposing gay marriage voted to ban gay (and straight) civil unions as well.

I will agree, I don't see what you see. And so far no one can explain it. They can change the subject to their religion, but even then, they don't say how gay marriage detracts from their own marriage. I keep asking.

I am all for your difference. But don't ask me to be like you. Don't demand that my gay friends and relatives be like you. You are a unique and beautiful snowflake and that's great. But it's not great when you demand that everyone else live the way you do.

Anyone to 'be like me'.

I have never demanded anyone live like I do.

I have gay relatives, they do what they do, I do what I do.

I have always been unusual, but I won't try to get society to accept that as a norm.

I have no opposition to the expansion of 'protections' under the title of civil unions.

I'm all for gay couples in Civil Unions to get slapped with same tax burden i face every every 4/15. Everything you get in this life comes with a price....

a 'married/civil unioned' gay couple will NOT be able to check that box (and be taxed) like a married couple.

is a gay marriage.

I gave in that while I did not agree with the life style people have a right to choose how they want to live. If they wanted a civil union as well this was fine, but just don't force me or my children to have to deal with it. I have seen many post's sence than and what I am more so comming up with is there are so many more reasons why this is just so wrong its unbelievable. If we legalize this we might as well legalize pologimy. I am so much hearing that it is not a personal choice, but how they are born gay. Is this to mean that people can start using as a defence to murder that they were born with this instinct. Or yet a pedofile. Oh yea lets not forget from a very young age I felt the calling to steal. You may think this is a little far sided, and far from hurting any one but the truith is this has alwayes been something that has been wrong. If we are going to start allowing unexceptable behavior or what used to be considered unexceptable where will it stop. Maby after they legalize marrage to relatives.
Yes I know this is sick but if any one hasn't noticed the male and female anatomony is differant, if we were supposed to have a choice with our gendor, we would have multiple sex organs.

How do you and your children have to deal with married gays? Please give an example of how that works, OK?

Pedophilia, murder and shoplifting, behaviors that are not acceptable in our society are not in this category at all, and do not belong in this or any post unless your goal is to sound shrill and very dumb. Two gays committing to each other does not affect the health or welfare of you or me.

I can tell by the ditto's I don't stand alone on this. I want to remind you as well same sex anything was not exceptable in our society either.
You ask about dealing with married gays. Its not all the married gays thats the problem. It's the pre-married gays that can't make up their minds what they are. As well you have those that choose it just to buck the system. Before you say no way, I think you need to open up your eyes, and actualy look for this as it is becoming more so common.

You are probably one of these people that think you are born this way and don't have a choice. I bet as well you also believe it is right to swing both ways.
If you say yes to both. You are doing no more than hurting your own cause. If you are born this way than you will only be attracted to the same sex. If you try and tell me that it is a defect that makes you un certain, than I revert back to Pedophelia, murder and a long list of crimes that could be caused by as you call it a birth defect. No matter where you slice it you cannot tell me where the line between right and wrong is! If you dispute the fact of homosexuality being unecceptable, why don't you look and see even in California where the majority voted against this issue.

for your kids! They are going to need a lot of therapy to shed the kind of dumb muck you are teaching them.

That you never have kids as so it will be less dumbness and warped behavior.

Clever response. Hard to argue with that.

Daddy, why are those two men kissing?
It's ok junior, the state won't give them a marriage license.


I just don't follow the logic there. How does keeping gays from the benefits of a legal marriage make it any easier for you and your kids to coexist with them?

I know that the two women holding hands is confusing you, son, but let me explain. If one of them is hurt in an accident riding her harley, and ends up in the hospital, the other won't be able to visit her, because the government says they aren't really related.


As for claiming that being born that way is a defense for other crimes, those crimes have victims. I don't care if someone is born gay or decides they just like someone with the same set of anatomy as them. There's no victim, so I don't care. You can go gay when you turn 50 if you want, or you can be born that way. Doesn't matter to me, because no one gets hurt.

I guess this as well counts for the countless suasides because someone didn't know if they wanted to be straight or not.
In your statement above as well it seems that you are condoning sexual premesquity whowever that is spelled. Plain fact Homosexuality is not natural..... It may be choice but not natural. When you open up a subject like this for legalities , you tend to open the door to areas that may or may not be in question.
I say if [removed] do not say.... Please stay in the closet as it is not any ones buisness but yours ...... Don't ask don't tell...............

G ay considered a sensored word?

This web site has a very strange filter for what is considered a bad word. I can say [no swearing please], but I can't abbreviate it to [no swearing please]last time I checked. Lets see if it filters it this time. Very strange word choices.

Now I can say neither O my gawd or oh emm gee. Interesting. Lets see if either of those goes through.

Please, explain to me what benefits legal marriage will afford you that you can't already get? Who keeps this list and where is it? I'm assuming since you can only get these 'benefits' through marriage that is no other way to attain them, right?

Lets see, what about this list:
a. Flow of assets after death -- no, that can be covered by a Will

b. life insurance and pension funds -- no, that can usually be covered by filing the proper paperwork with the companies while you're alive

c. Less of a tax burden for being a married couple -- well, now i'm just making stuff up. All married couples get the shaft on taxes

d. Having children -- physically impossible between two members of the same sex, without medical intervention.

e. buying assets (like a house) jointly -- no, marriage doesnt matter here, as two people can buy chattel jointly without being married

So what benefits are you talking about?

Did you just come to this discussion? The number of benefits of marriage is up for debate, but there are clearly several hundred. Howstuffworks.com says there are 1,138 federal benefits. gaylife.com says 1049. I see that 1049 in several places. I don't want to post links here, as this web forum has lousy formatting for such things. Google marriage benefits and you will find plenty of lists.


a. Often gay wills are set aside by courts in favor of blood relatives, or even previous hetersexual spouses who have been divorced for years.

b. often true, but still, sometimes set aside.

c. I agree, but some people count it as a benefit. If only one person produces income, there is a slight benefit.

d. not dependant on a marriage license, I agree. But sometimes one person comes into a relationship with children. If I marry a woman and she has a kid, I become a parent instantly. If I marry a guy and he has a kid, I'm just some stranger in the eyes of the law.

e. we go back to a on this one.


Here in virginia, we have explicitly banned any legal instrument that provides any benefit of marriage to any unmarried couple, even if they are hetrerosexual. We haven't seen it used to break wills or joint ownership, but the language is very clear, those wills are not valid in this state.

Retirement benefits flowing to the surviving spouse?
Making medical decisions hospital visitation.
Taking family leave in case your partner is ill.
Spousal benefits through a spouse's employer (only some companies offer this)
Adoption rights
Bereavement leave benefits
The list goes on and on.
Wills can be and are regularly challenged so a will is not a definite solution.
And....why should a gay couple have to go through excess legal paperwork to accomplish this when a signed marriage license does it all in one felt swoop?

1. see above re: pension and life insurance, which covers most of these same issues.

2. Should be covered completely by a power of attorney

3. The rules of this vary based on state. But this may be something that expansion of civil union rules could help with. I'll concede on this one.

4. as you stated, some employers already offer this and it should stay employer based. Benefits decisions should not be made by the state or fed govmt over private businesses.

5. I have not seen any laws stating that gay couples (or individuals for that matter) could not adopt. Heck, if they have enough money, i'd even put myself up for adoption to the right gay couple!

6. See above re: employer benefits

7. Will are challenged for all sexual orientations. Children who might be left out. Spouses or ex-spouses that feel they have been unfairly excluded or not given their fair share. Too many scenarios here to list.

8. The 'too much paperwork' argument. Guess what? If i want my assets protected properly, i take the time the make sure the required documents are completed and filed. I'm not gay. I'm intelligent and careful. Lets not make this particular issue one of laziness. Its protection of your accumulated assets, not painting the kitchen. And a marriage license does not fix the majority of the things being mentioned. If you think it does, you're kidding yourself.

Retirement benefits 'flowing' to the survivor takes paperwork, even for MARRIED folks.

...does this mean Pelosi will finally come out of the closet?

Hope not, they all need to go back in the closet and then somebody lock it, and burn it down!

Is one of biology. If gay marriage was intended for the human race, why is it that 'boy parts' were designed to fit with 'girl parts' and create life? And i don't want to hear the argument that we can circumvent that with modern technology and IVR, etc. We are talking about BIOLOGICAL design here.

Our inherent design is ONE MALE and ONE FEMALE to allow for the reproduction of the species. Love and companionship are separate ideals from this concept. If you want to spend your life with your lover, go ahead. Make a Will, buy a house together, adopt. I don't care. But since MARRIAGE is a union based on religious history, you shouldnt be allowed to be MARRIED unless you conform to the traditional definition of said union. Marriage is for the continuation of the species as allowed for under God's eyes. Thats the way it is, and thats the way i hope it stays.

Linda and quack friends and mark this offensive all day long. To steal a page from their playbook "It wont change how i feel".

one civil/legal and one religious.

It is possible to be married at the Justice of the Peace without ever having a religious ceremony. Society (and their home churches) consider these people married. Some people choose to have another ceremony in their church before whatever god they believe in. That's cool if they choose it but they don't have to choose that religious ceremony to be considered married. Once that marriage license is signed, they immediately get the over 1300 rights and privileges that legal marriage gives them.

No one is trying to force religions that do not believe in sanctioning same sex couples in marriage to do so. (And as an FYI, this is NOT all religions. There are plenty of examples of liberal religions which fully believe in equal treatment in religious marriage for all people. So don't try to argue that ALL religions don't sanction this.)

But treating all citizens fairly at the government level is what is at issue here. I have been with my partner for 13 years. I have to arrange all kinds of legal documents to ensure things like the right of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making, etc and no matter what I try to do legally at the Federal level right now, he cannot receive any of my SSI at my death. Hetero couples get over 1300 of these rights immediately upon signing a marriage license. That is what is at issue here.

While it's true that it takes a male sperm and female egg to reproduce, there are hundreds of thousands of couples in this country who do not reproduce and are still afforded the rights of marriage.

that anyone, married or not, that does not have a Will (and other such documents) prepared well in advance of their death needs their heads examined, right?

I know that in modern times, JP's perform weddings. A lot of weddings. Especially since the cost of a traditional wedding has gotten so out of control. My point was that the institution of marriage is based on religious principles and has a traditional definition.

I don't want gay people to be second class citizens here. And personally, i think a much better approach for the gay rights movement would be to petition the states to expand the benefits contained in Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership agreements to make things more equal. But Marriage is Marriage. And its between a man and woman. Once we start redefining legal terms, things are going to go sideways in a hurry.

In order to provide the benefits, we have to redefine a legal term. That's not optional. Either we redefine who can get married, or we redefine all those different laws that reference married people. One of those tasks is a lot easier.

I think we should eliminate the legal use of the word married entirely, let the churches have that word back. The state should only have civil unions. Let people decide if they want to get married in the eyes of god, their god, any god, or in the eyes of the state, or both. But I know that would take a lot of re-writing of law. On the other hand, I think we need a lot of re-writing of law. When one person can't read the tax laws in less than a year, the laws are a mess and need revision.

is a WHOLE other conversation. Don't even get me started on the volumes of ridiculousness that is our American Tax suystem!

(flat tax, flat tax, flat tax - i'm quietly trying to start a chant...)

If we can get a flat tax, and all the other tax-like revenue streams shut off, I will chant with you. One, simple, no BS tax, and be done with it.

Be not deceived. Fenty may be right on this issue, but he's an abysmal failure at everything else.