David Tyree is a moron

[ESTONES6]

What are your reasonings? Are they religious? For ages now, people get married who aren't following a religion that says a marriage is only between a man and women. I mean, marriage used to be strictly a religious ceremony, but now it's not. So, who are to tell two people who love each other that they can't be married because they both happen to be of the same gender? It's the same ludicrous thinking that decades ago, a black man and a white women couldn't get married. Again, who are we to stay they can't be married because is makes us feel uncomfortable. It's incredibly messed up.

Nope. I try to keep religion out of this debate, because 1.) I'm not very religious and 2.) you can't mention religion without people :censored:ting a brick.

I think it should remain man and woman because of the most basic of reasons: man + woman = procreation. It is the only means to continue a family, to continue culture, to continue life. That is pretty fair AND pretty logical... right? It seems when I have this discussion, people just ignore that argument and only use it when it benefits their own side.

Please don't take what I say next as a hostile comment or anything... I'm just trying to continue having an intelligent conversation. Your argument that there are 2 people who love each other. Just like in incest, 2 people are claiming love for each other. Just like pedophilia - or the adult/child relationship equivalent - its 2 people claiming they love each other. In the case of incest and adult/child, people say its an illness, its disgusting, its taboo. People say those adults have a disordered approach to love and they don't know what love really is. But when it comes to homosexuality, people don't say the same thing. Homosexuality is 2 adults, just like incest, claiming true love, just like incest. So where is the difference? Most people say the difference lies with procreation. In an incestual relationship, the offspring can had devastating disorders and health concerns. Obviously, something is unnatural about that relationship. It's Natures way of saying that goes against Natural Law. In a homosexual relationship, they can't even have kids. So, following logic, there is something unnatural about that relationship. It's Natures way of saying that goes against Natural Law.

Now, when people compare homosexuality to being a particular race, its comparing apples to oranges. If you are a white guy, you can't wake up one morning and decide to be black. There aren't certain clothes or certain behaviors that make you black (for those of you poised to make racist comments, check those at the door). On the flip side... if you are a straight man, one morning, you can actually get up, and partake in homosexual activities. Again, there aren't clothes you can put on (again, check the jokes), but there are certain behaviors that are clearly homosexual. Its basic, but its also the smoking gun.

Please - for the homosexual supports - don't just ignore valid points, like most homosexual supporters do. Learn to eat crow. Recognize they are valid and try to rebuttal properly, so we can have a proper discussion.

I guess when it comes to marriage... I just view it differently. I think it is so unnatural for 2 people to devote their entire lives to each other. It goes against animal instinct. But I think if you do enter into marriage, it should be something precious, something cherished. I don't think it is a right, for anyone. Gay, straight, or otherwise. I think every homosexual should have the same basic freedoms anyone else has. But again, I don't view marriage as a right. A right implies that you are born with it, it is innate. I don't think marriage is innate. I think it takes tremendous strength and courage... its not for everyone - straight or gay. I don't think marriage should just be a social club, unfortunately, that's all it tends to be in the United States.

One way I kind of relate marriage is the Army. The Army isn't for everyone, clearly. The Army sets standards, physical and mental standards. If you don't meet those standards, you can't join the Army. Should people cry foul? No, because the Army isn't a social club. The Army is an honor, a privilege... its not a right to join the Army. I view marriage alone the same lines. Its not for everyone. If we are going to allow tax breaks and the countless other benefits, we should have stricter rules and qualifications on marriage. Should people cry foul? No, because marriage shouldn't be a social club. It should be an honor, a privilege... not a right.

[Gothamite]

And see, that's why it's hard to have a serious conversation with you. Because you keep insisting that the world should be the way you want it, wereas I keep talking about the way the world is.

Marriage is a Constitutional right. That's a demonstrable, incontrovertible fact. You want it to be a special privilege, but it's not. I've got the Supreme Court on my side on this one.

Once you start from a faulty premise, then you can layer whatever bizarre canards you like (gay people can change, marriage is primarily for having children,etc.) but they're all equally worthless.

You write a lot of words (and then complain if every single point in the multitude isn't specifically rebutted), while ignoring the central question, posed many pages ago:

What legitimate, Constitutionally-valid reason is there for denying gay couples their fundamental Constitutional right to marry?

That's a simple question. Please answer it.

[ESTONES6]

And see, that's why it's hard to have a serious conversation with you. Because you keep insisting that the world should be the way you want it, wereas I keep talking about the way the world is.

Marriage is a Constitutional right. That's a demonstrable, incontrovertible fact. You want it to be a special privilege, but it's not. I've got the Supreme Court on my side on this one.

Once you start from a faulty premise, then you can layer whatever bizarre canards you like (gay people can change, marriage is primarily for having children,etc.) but they're all equally worthless.

You write a lot of words (and then complain if every single point in the multitude isn't specifically rebutted), while ignoring the central question, posed many pages ago:

What legitimate, Constitutionally-valid reason is there fr denying gay couples their fundamental Constitutional right to marry?

That's a simple question. Please answer it.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm stating my reasons that contribute to my opinion. The same way you and others are stating your reasons that contribute to your opinions. The problem here (and with many debates), one side respects the other's opinion, while the other side doesn't hold the same respect. I respect your opinions and see validity in your reasons... however you won't do the same for me.

As for the right to marry: The United States Constitution does not mention marriage at all. It's not a constitutional right, nor is it fundamental. That's fairly obvious to see. Despite that, I'll continue.

I don't believe pro-creation is the soul purpose of marriage. I have never stated or hinted at that. However, procreation is still a substantial part of it, whether you care to recognize it as such or not. Now, BECAUSE man + woman is the only combination that CAN procreate (continue life, continue culture), you would think there should be some benefit there. I relate it to soldiers getting military discounts because of their bravery, their strength, doing something that the average person can't. Or how about an intelligent student receiving a scholarship for good grades and taking on a demanding major? The average student doesn't have a 3.5 GPA or takes Pharmacy as their major.

[Gothamite]

As for the right to marry: The United States Constitution does not mention marriage at all. It's not a constitutional right, nor is it fundamental. That's fairly obvious to see. Despite that, I'll continue.

You didn't read your copy carefully enough - it's there, in the 9th Amendment.

Again, let's please stay in the real world. Loving v. Virginia, Turner v. Safley and others. Constitutional right to marry, clearly established and affirmed.

You personally want marriage to be some special privilege accorded to the few. Well, I want to ride Pegasus on my morning commute tomorrow. Neither of us can bend reality to our whims.

Now please answer my question.

[Cosmic]

And see, that's why it's hard to have a serious conversation with you. Because you keep insisting that the world should be the way you want it, wereas I keep talking about the way the world is.

Marriage is a Constitutional right. That's a demonstrable, incontrovertible fact. You want it to be a special privilege, but it's not. I've got the Supreme Court on my side on this one.

Once you start from a faulty premise, then you can layer whatever bizarre canards you like (gay people can change, marriage is primarily for having children,etc.) but they're all equally worthless.

You write a lot of words (and then complain if every single point in the multitude isn't specifically rebutted), while ignoring the central question, posed many pages ago:

What legitimate, Constitutionally-valid reason is there fr denying gay couples their fundamental Constitutional right to marry?

That's a simple question. Please answer it.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm stating my reasons that contribute to my opinion. The same way you and others are stating your reasons that contribute to your opinions. The problem here (and with many debates), one side respects the other's opinion, while the other side doesn't hold the same respect. I respect your opinions and see validity in your reasons... however you won't do the same for me.

As for the right to marry: The United States Constitution does not mention marriage at all. It's not a constitutional right, nor is it fundamental. That's fairly obvious to see. Despite that, I'll continue.

I don't believe pro-creation is the soul purpose of marriage. I have never stated or hinted at that. However, procreation is still a substantial part of it, whether you care to recognize it as such or not. Now, BECAUSE man + woman is the only combination that CAN procreate (continue life, continue culture), you would think there should be some benefit there. I relate it to soldiers getting military discounts because of their bravery, their strength, doing something that the average person can't. Or how about an intelligent student receiving a scholarship for good grades and taking on a demanding major? The average student doesn't have a 3.5 GPA or takes Pharmacy as their major.

1. You can say you don't believe that marriage is a right, but it doesn't really matter. Marriages ARE being sanctioned by the gov't. We are discussing why some relationships are recognized by the gov't and not others.

2. Do you believe that the production of children is a vital part of a marriage? What about heterosexual couples who physically cannot have children? How is a homosexual couple who chooses not to have kids different from a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have kids? How is an adoptive homosexual couple different from an adoptive heterosexual couple?

[ESTONES6]

As for the right to marry: The United States Constitution does not mention marriage at all. It's not a constitutional right, nor is it fundamental. That's fairly obvious to see. Despite that, I'll continue.

You didn't read your copy carefully enough - it's there, in the 9th Amendment.

Again, let's please stay in the real world. Loving v. Virginia, Turner v. Safley and others. Constitutional right to marry, clearly established and affirmed.

You personally want marriage to be some special privilege accorded to the few. Well, I want to ride Pegasus on my morning commute. We are both to be disappointed by inconvenient reality.

Now please answer my question.

Like I said, the Constitution does NOT address marriage. Please not our government is comprised of 3 branches, none of which are the same or are responsible for the same things. The Supreme Court's responsibility is to interpret and uphold the FEDERAL Constitution. Technically, the Supreme Court should not even be ruling on cases of marriage since it is not discussed or addressed in the Constitution of the United States.

Anyway, at this point I'm doing this to humor you, because you want to evoke the Federal Constitution when the Federal Constitution does not address marriage... and by your own submission, you cite a State-level case. I believe you question was:

What legitimate, Constitutionally-valid reason is there for denying gay couples their fundamental Constitutional right to marry?

Let's take it piece by piece:

1.) Marriage is not fundamental right. I can't stress this enough.

2.) Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution of the United States... not once.

3.) Pro-creation is very legitimate. Tangible, even.

4.) As for constitutionally valid... is there constitutional validity for ALLOWING gay marriage, hell marriage in general for that matter? I know its a terribly immature response, but it still holds water. There can't be a reason to restrict marriage, if there isn't a reason to promote marriage. You are asking me a question that can't technically be answered, one way or the other.

5.) The Federal Constitution doesn't say anything about incest, bestiality, or pedophilia either...

The Constitution outlines the structure of government, more than anything. The Bill of Rights and the amendments that follow are technically part of the Constitution, but still, none of them address marriage, which is why its an issue that should be, and is, reserved to the states... at least until 2/3rds of Congress says otherwise.

[ESTONES6]

1. You can say you don't believe that marriage is a right, but it doesn't really matter. Marriages ARE being sanctioned by the gov't. We are discussing why some relationships are recognized by the gov't and not others.

2. Do you believe that the production of children is a vital part of a marriage? What about heterosexual couples who physically cannot have children? How is a homosexual couple who chooses not to have kids different from a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have kids? How is an adoptive homosexual couple different from an adoptive heterosexual couple?

First... thank you for responding like an adult and actually providing some insight.

1.) You are correct, they are being recognized by the State governments. However, in our society, nothing is objective and there are often shades of gray.

2.) As I said in my initial post... I wrestle with this topic on a number of points. Is the production of children a vital part of marriage? I'm not sure. Can you NOT have children and still love someone, devout yourself to someone, still respect them, still be happy, still have a successful marriage? Yes, absolutely. But talking to my cousin and his 3 kids... he will say yes, that children are critical to a marriage. He will say that having children enhances a marriage in ways you can't really put into words. Ask my other cousin and his wife, who can't have children, they will say obviously its not vital, but they wish every day they could have kids. They feel something is missing out of their marriage. Ask my other cousin and her husband, and they will say hell no... children aren't vital.

A homosexual couple doesn't choose to have children or not. They physically CAN'T have children. Even the heterosexual couples who "can't" have kids still have the potential to have children, but their likelihood is well below the average, due to an a wealth of circumstances. The difference comes to the can and can't. Although it may not be likely for a heterosexual couple to have children, there is still potential. There could still be a 0.000001% chance. When it comes to homosexuals, there is a 0.0% chance. I wish I could make this stuff more elaborate, but it is pretty basic when you break it down.

As for adoption... adoption is great... and homosexual couples are just as capable of raising a healthy child. I'm not even going to bring up the straw man theory of omg they raise gay kids! No one can say that for sure. One study says there is no correlation, the next study says there is a correlation... its irrelevant to my point. What I will bring up is the love from a parent to a child. Each parent gives has a different type of love that they share with their child, based on their experiences and instinct. Among those are experiences are being a man and being a woman. Whether people want to admit it or not, the love a mother gives is distinct and different than that of a father (yes, of course, there are always exceptions). I think the love from a mother and the love from a father are different but equally necessary for a child.

Again, this is going to digress in to bringing order back to the family structure.

[Gothamite]

I'm sorry ESTONE. You can deny reality all you want, but the rest of us have to live in it.

The Supreme Court has on several occasions recognized a Constitutional right to marry. Now, you may wish to ignore the 9th Amendment altogether (you know, that's the one that says a Constitutional right doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right), but are you also willing to ignore the existence of the entire Article III as well?

You keep posting long screeds, but refuse to answer my one very simple question. Why is that?

[ESTONES6]

I'm sorry ESTONE. Uou can deny reality all you want, but the rest of us have to live in it.

You keep posting long screeds, but refuse to answer my very simple question. Why is that?

Let's take it piece by piece:

1.) Marriage is not fundamental right. I can't stress this enough.

2.) Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution of the United States... not once.

3.) Pro-creation is very legitimate. Tangible, even.

4.) As for constitutionally valid... is there constitutional validity for ALLOWING gay marriage, hell marriage in general for that matter? I know its a terribly immature response, but it still holds water. There can't be a reason to restrict marriage, if there isn't a reason to promote marriage. You are asking me a question that can't technically be answered, one way or the other.

5.) The Federal Constitution doesn't say anything about incest, bestiality, or pedophilia either...

As I said... there is nothing in the Constitution talking about Marriage, whether is hetero- or homosexual. There is nothing in the Constitution advocating marriage between homosexual couples or heterosexuals couples. Therefore, there is nothing that can be quoted to detract from homosexual or heterosexual marriages, based on the Constitution.

You are asking me a question that can't be answered.

I'm sorry ESTONE. You can deny reality all you want, but the rest of us have to live in it.

I am very much living in reality. Government, which is what we are debating, is the process of creating an ideal society out of unideal society. There is no ruling on this topic that is going to please everyone, hence Government, hence reality.

[Gothamite]

Your admittedly "terribly immature" response ignored the question.

1. Marriage is a right, unless you don't believe in the Constitution and/or Supreme Court.

2. See "Amendment, 9th". There it is.

3. Procreation is not and never has been a legal requirement for marriage. Maybe you think it should be, but again, it isn't.

4. There are thousands of Federal and state laws governing marriage. Again, if you'd like to argue before the Court that they should all be thrown out, I can give you directions to Washington.

5. Charming. The last desperate gasp. Neither children nor animals are capable of consent, so that's a red herring.

So no. You still haven't answered the question.

Let me put it another way: when marriage equality comes before the Court, which it will, what possible reasons could Justice Scalia give for voting against it?.

It's really quite simple, except that it requires an answer steeped not in personal preferences but in the law.

[Gothamite]

You know, I think we can make this even simpler.

Do you accept the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution?

That answer will tell us much.

[ESTONES6]

Your admittedly "terribly immature" response ignored the question.

1. Marriage is a right, unless you don't believe in the Constitution and/or Supreme Court.

2. See "Amendment, 9th". There it is.

3. Procreation is not and never has been a legal requirement for marriage. Maybe you think it should be, but again, it isn't.

4. There are thousands of Federal and state laws governing marriage. Again, if you'd like to argue before the Court that they should all be thrown out, I can give you directions to Washington.

5. Charming. The last desperate gasp. Neither children nor animals are capable of consent, so that's a red herring.

So no. You still haven't answered the question.

Let me put it another way: when marriage equality comes before the Court, which it will, what possible reasons could Justice Scalia give for voting against it?.

It's really quite simple, except that it requires an answer steeped not in personal preferences but in the law.

1.) What you continue to ignore is that Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold and defend the Constitution. If the Constitution does not address marriage, they technically have no influence on the case of marriage. It would be reserved to the State-level Courts, concerning their individual State's Constitutions. Again, the Federal Supreme Court should have no influence on the topic.

2.) Once again, Amendment 9 speaks nothing of marriage. It is a general Amendment.

3.) Never did I say it was requirement. I never alluded it to be a requirement.

4.) State Courts are the only courts that technically can rule on the issue of marriage, as they should. Federal Courts are technically overstepping their bounds by ruling on Marriage issues.

5.) If you want to talk about Red Herrings... you conveniently ignore the issue of incest (which is what most of you do, you ignore issues that are detrimental to your argument). There are also children who are very capable of giving consent, but are not permitted to based on HUMAN LAW. Which is exactly what we are talking about: HUMAN LAW. You can't get upset about human law restricting the freedoms of some citizens without getting upset about human law restricting the freedoms of other citizens... that's hypocrisy.

To answer your bolded question: "Marriage is not a right, thus not entitled to everyone. The purpose of marriage (this is an example, I'm not saying this is the definition of marriage... just play Devil's Advocate) is to devout one's self to another, to promote a sound family structure, with a solid moral foundation, to pass along life and culture to the next generation." All of those can be attributed to a homosexual couple except life... devotion, moral foundation, culture are all things a homosexual couple can pass along.

Personally, I don't think its so far fetched for a group of people who are solely responsible for the continuation of human life to get some sort of special benefit. You can talk about artificial insemination and adoption all you want, but the fact of the matter is, it still requires male and female.

[ESTONES6]

You know, I think we can make this even simpler.

Do you accept the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution?

That answer will tell us much.

YES! I have said that probably 4 times now! That IS the Supreme Courts responsibility... to interpret and defend the FEDERAL Constitution, not the States Constitutions.

But what YOU continue to ignore is that The United States Constitution does not address marriage in the least bit, way, shape, or form. Therefore, the Supreme Court has no right to make rulings on marriage, with one, and ONLY one exception:

If a State in the Union has law that grants same-sex marriage but some freak-religious group sues the State, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could then cite the 9th AND 10th Amendments, thus defending the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Supreme Court would then be defending the 9th and 10th Amendments of the United States Constitution, those of which giving powers to the States to address rights/laws not specified in the Federal Constitution.

The alternative is also valid. If a State has a law restricting marriage to male and female, but someone sue the State on the side of same-sex marriage, taking it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would also have to cite the 9th and 10th Amendments, upholding the State's right to dictate the definition of marriage through law.

The only thing the Supreme Court can rule on concerning marriage is what individual States have in their Constitutions or laws BECAUSE the Federal Constitution allows States to make laws that are not specifically addressed in the Federal Constitution... such as marriage.

I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion... but I have the sneaking suspicion that we are pissing off the rest of the community with our banter. Annoying them with this conversation more so than my Cleveland homerism. If you want to PM me or email me, I wouldn't mind discussing it more.

[rams80]

The Constitution outlines the structure of government, more than anything. The Bill of Rights and the amendments that follow are technically part of the Constitution, but still, none of them address marriage, which is why its an issue that should be, and is, reserved to the states... at least until 2/3rds of Congress says otherwise.

As they did when they made the 14th Amendment.

/Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

[JQK]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

[Sport]

I think it should remain man and woman because of the most basic of reasons: man + woman = procreation. It is the only means to continue a family, to continue culture, to continue life. That is pretty fair AND pretty logical... right? It seems when I have this discussion, people just ignore that argument and only use it when it benefits their own side.

The greatest threat to the human race is overpopulation, not gay people brainwashing everyone else into being gay (because that's not how you get gay). There's always going to be heterosexual people (and a lot of them) to make more people. Again, procreation is not essential to marriage. When you apply for a marriage license you don't have to indicate whether or not you plan to have kids. My uncle's been married for 24 years with no kids as an example, by your "logic" he shouldn't be married.

Please don't take what I say next as a hostile comment or anything... I'm just trying to continue having an intelligent conversation. Your argument that there are 2 people who love each other. Just like in incest, 2 people are claiming love for each other. Just like pedophilia - or the adult/child relationship equivalent - its 2 people claiming they love each other. In the case of incest and adult/child, people say its an illness, its disgusting, its taboo. People say those adults have a disordered approach to love and they don't know what love really is. But when it comes to homosexuality, people don't say the same thing. Homosexuality is 2 adults, just like incest, claiming true love, just like incest. So where is the difference? Most people say the difference lies with procreation. In an incestual relationship, the offspring can had devastating disorders and health concerns. Obviously, something is unnatural about that relationship. It's Natures way of saying that goes against Natural Law. In a homosexual relationship, they can't even have kids. So, following logic, there is something unnatural about that relationship. It's Natures way of saying that goes against Natural Law.

This is the same "where do you draw the line?" argument. "If we let gay people get married then people are going to want to marry their sister, or their dog or their TV, where do we draw the line?" You draw the line at same sex couples and the reason is because same sex couples have legitimate reasons for wanting to get married. Also, mammals, other than humans, have shown homosexual tendencies. That's nature.

Now, when people compare homosexuality to being a particular race, its comparing apples to oranges. If you are a white guy, you can't wake up one morning and decide to be black. There aren't certain clothes or certain behaviors that make you black (for those of you poised to make racist comments, check those at the door). On the flip side... if you are a straight man, one morning, you can actually get up, and partake in homosexual activities. Again, there aren't clothes you can put on (again, check the jokes), but there are certain behaviors that are clearly homosexual. Its basic, but its also the smoking gun.

Now we're back to whether or not being gay is a choice and I've made myself pretty clear that it is not a choice. I didn't choose to have blue eyes, Braden didn't choose to be gay. I could probably go out tonight and have sex with a guy, but I'd be lying to myself and could never partake in a long relationship with another male because the attraction just ins't there, just like Braden would be lying to himself if he tried to have a relationship with a female. Again, I don't know a single gay person who chose to be gay. It's less about the sexual act and more about the innate attraction to one sex over the other. In that sense I never chose to be straight and neither did you.

Now, because it's innate (though it really shouldn't matter whether it's a choice or not) then it's humanly criminal to deny them basic rights, which marriage is.

Please - for the homosexual supports - don't just ignore valid points, like most homosexual supporters do. Learn to eat crow. Recognize they are valid and try to rebuttal properly, so we can have a proper discussion.

Follow this, your own advice.

[Dexter Morgan]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

[Dexter Morgan]

History will look down and be ashamed of people like ESTONE6 standing in the way o equality. It's funny, history repeats itself over and over. You're entitled in this country to believe deluded, factually incorrect, misguided, bigoted beliefs. But you are not entitled to push them on others. Don't like gay marriage? well it's pretty simple. Don't marry someone of the same sex. What someone else choses to do with their life should not be up to you, or anyone else.

[ESTONES6]

The greatest threat to the human race is overpopulation, not gay people brainwashing everyone else into being gay (because that's not how you get gay). There's always going to be heterosexual people (and a lot of them) to make more people. Again, procreation is not essential to marriage. When you apply for a marriage license you don't have to indicate whether or not you plan to have kids. My uncle's been married for 24 years with no kids as an example, by your "logic" he shouldn't be married.

That's not my logic at all. Don't fabricate things. I never said he shouldn't be married. I said a heterosexual marriage is open to procreation, thus continuing life and culture.

This is the same "where do you draw the line?" argument. "If we let gay people get married then people are going to want to marry their sister, or their dog or their TV, where do we draw the line?" You draw the line at same sex couples and the reason is because same sex couples have legitimate reasons for wanting to get married. Also, mammals, other than humans, have shown homosexual tendencies. That's nature.

I draw the line at same-sex marriage... for all the reasons I addressed in the last 10 posts. You draw the line at a different place. But let's not forget, at one point in human history, same-sex marriage was just as outlandish and human-animal marriage. Don't do what you are about to do and say Oh hell, that means in 5 years humans and horses will be getting married. No. But at some point, same-sex marriage was crazy to even entertain... the same way human-animal marriage is crazy to entertain. Let me clarify: I don't EVER expect human-animal marriages to occur... but once again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

Now we're back to whether or not being gay is a choice and I've made myself pretty clear that it is not a choice. I didn't choose to have blue eyes, Braden didn't choose to be gay. I could probably go out tonight and have sex with a guy, but I'd be lying to myself and could never partake in a long relationship with another male because the attraction just ins't there, just like Braden would be lying to himself if he tried to have a relationship with a female. Again, I don't know a single gay person who chose to be gay. It's less about the sexual act and more about the innate attraction to one sex over the other. In that sense I never chose to be straight and neither did you.

You are missing the point I was making. You are right, you don't wake up and choose blue eyes... but you also can't participate in the act of having blue eyes. Whether homosexuals are born with it or not, they still can choose whether to lay with another man or not. That's the point I was making. There are actual documentaries (Discovery, History are the easiest and most accessible examples) where straight men have chosen to participate in homosexual acts, and then proceeded to stay sexually active with men... no longer with women.

Follow this, your own advice.

I don't mind eating crow. I have eaten crow in numerous threads here. But there is no crow to be eaten when people fabricate or misconstrue what I say.

[ESTONES6]

History will look down and be ashamed of people like ESTONE6 standing in the way o equality. It's funny, history repeats itself over and over. You're entitled in this country to believe deluded, factually incorrect, misguided, bigoted beliefs. But you are not entitled to push them on others. Don't like gay marriage? well it's pretty simple. Don't marry someone of the same sex. What someone else choses to do with their life should not be up to you, or anyone else.

Oh please. Could you be more dramatic? My opinion is not deluded, but well thought out, I'm not citing incorrect facts, nor am I a bigot. A bigot is someone who is ignorant, uneducated, intolerable of other peoples views or opinions. I respect your opinion in your support of same-sex marriage, I recognize valid points, and understand where homosexual and heterosexual people are coming from. However, you refuse to respect mine. I am not pushing my views on anyone here. I have been calm and tried holding an informed discussion. How come the same-sex marriage supporters are the ones pushing their beliefs on me? Isn't that hypocrisy? I find it fascinating how a lot of you are quick to throw out terms like close-minded, forcing belief systems, etc. in these discussions, when I do no such thing. In actuality, its the opposite. You are the one refusing to understand my point of view/reasons, you are the one being disrespectful, you are the ones forcing your belief system on me, you are the one calling names and becoming hostile.

Thus is the problem with trying to have a discussion. I am going to be labeled a bigot because I just don't agree with one of your opinions. I'm being respectful to you, I am understanding of your opinions... but because I don't agree with you, you throw out terrible names like bigot. I'm not saying to kill them, or to hurt them, or to stop them from getting jobs, or stop them from getting an education, or stop them from trial by jury, or stop them from freedom of speech/press/religion, or stop them from being with each other. Its disgusting that you would even throw that word out there. All I am saying is, I believe, IN MY OPINION, marriage should be between man and woman, I have reasons why I think that. By no means am I saying they are second-rate citizens or anything even close to that. It is truly pitiful that you would throw that word out there like that. Pitiful.

I believe all humans deserve respect and basic freedoms. No one should have to be called slurs or suffer from some sort of physical or mental degradation. What I find more amazing than anything is people who are actually homosexual, who I am in contact with on nearly a weekly basis, respect my opinions and understand my point of view, more than people I am in contact with just through this forum. At one point I was very much a gay-rights supporter. I still am, but I believe that marriage is something that is different. I think marriage should be more strict for everyone, across the board, regardless of the genders involved.