Okay, well...

ummm I am close to calling this just what it is in language that would likely get me permanently barred.

Gio, you were married in the catholic church. You and your spouse married with the blessing of your families, the church and the state.

You enjoyed the benefits and privileges of marriage.

Silly stuff eh?

You failed.

Lots of heterosexuals fail at marriage.

Given the approximate 50% failure rate don't you think heterosexuals make a pretty poor argument for the sanctity of marriage?

Your freeway analogy sucks.

Anyway, let's go back to the 50's.

Such good times...*COUGH*

When women wanted their right to vote and such were laws passed to prevent that? They were given the right to vote even though it was not considered normal at the time.

Gays are in the same boat with marriage.

Homosexuality is not a behavior as most behaviors can be corrected with time and learning.
For me being in love with a man is as natural as your love for women. This is not a behavior it is who I am.

You can't punish someone for being who they are, I can't help being gay anymore than you can help being straight.

When I say women do not do anything for me, I am not kidding. I can stare at naked women all day and not feel anything at all. The man I love takes his shirt halfway off and let me tell ya, im paying attention.

Sorry, but no arguement will change my mind about marriage. Marriage is a union of gender and that is all. Love is still not part of it even though people will try to make you believe otherwise.

I will see marriage as nothing more than a piece of paper until it starts being more than that.

my freeway analogy is only to prove the point that the discrimination is not against the person...it is 100% correct !...in this country...all laws discriminate against behavior... ...

so when the law was that a black person could not drink from a white persons water founton was that a law against the behavior or the person?
Because that would be a better example.

When women wanted their right to vote and such were laws passed to prevent that? They were given the right to vote even though it was not considered normal at the time.


you're making my arguement for me with this statement...in this case...a womens right to vote was discrimination against people...not behavior...thats why it was rectified...with the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920...

once again...that wrong has been righted...that was not discrimination against behavior...that was discrimination against a person...let's take this a step further...when blacks had to sit in the back of the bus only because they were black...that's discrimination against a person...because...they were doing exactly what white people were doing...riding a bus...implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination...is completely false...

Far be it from me to tell any two people they can't consider themselves married to each other, but far be it from them to expect me to tell my children that homosexuality is a healthy and decent lifestyle.

it is exactly the same.
But the bigots of the time saw it as a law against their behavior also.
So i do not expect you to understand.

when you say " bigots of the time saw it as a law against their behavior also "....in what way ?...they were discriminated against because of their color...not their behavior...

homosexuls are discriminated against because our our sexuality. Would you like it if the government started making laws against straight people?

I can promise you that if they started making laws against straight people I would fight just as hard to correct it, but that's just me apparently.

What you call a behavior, is only a behavior to YOU. It is perfectly natural to me. Whether it is against the person or behavior it is still DISCRIMINATION. For me, passing laws that are meant to prevent me from being with the person I love is in essence attacking me and my rights. They are attacking my right to love someone based soley on the fact that the person is the same gender as me.

Every instance that has brought up has been refuted based on the fact that you claim it is a person not a behavior. If that is the case...what are gay people?? Aliens? property?
No we are people too and to pass laws that bar our so called behaviors is to pass laws against gay people. These have now become laws discriminating against sexuality. As I have already said homosexuality is as normal to me as heterosexuality is to you.

and my mother wonders why i stay in my apartment all day....i don't want to deal with people that can't accept me for who I am.

See if the government and churchers just got rid of marriage altogether, problem solved.

*edited because I didn't like how one paragraph sounded.

But at the time it was thought of as behavior

you're missing my point entirely...what I've posted is in know way religious in nature...it's only to show " why "...certain laws exist...whether I've tried it or not has no bearing on these laws...and...it is not I who is being discriminatory...but...the law...once again my original thoughts...

the discrimination isn't against the person...it's against the behavior...all laws discriminate against behavior...for instance...you can't ride a bike on the freeway...there's laws against that behavior...but...if that person gets into a car...he's no longer discriminated against...here's another example I posted earlier...

this a land of laws...the discrimination is NOT against the person...it's against the behavior...another example would be...your driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone...you get pulled over and ticketed...the disrcimination is not against the person...look...Gays marry all the time...I'm a straight male...and...I can't marry another male...thats not being discriminatory against me...it's being discriminatory against my behavior...

Government should have nothing to do with marriage at all. Laws should not come from religion. No sexual relationship should be recognized by government. Heirs, benificiaries,& power of attourny should not have anything to do with sex. You should name these people at age 18, & the only exception should be that your minor children are provided for 1st. Then there would be no discrimination & the moral issues would be left to a church you belong to voluntarily.

I just don't understand what the real objection here is. I personally am not gay, but I still respect the rights of others to live as they wish. Seeing as how most marriages in the U.S. end in divorce anyway, what is the big deal. Does any bible thumping bigot really think they are going to be able to keep there little darling kids from ever being exposed to what is going on the the world. Good luck with that, when the police find your child locked in a room somewhere you will go to prison for the rest of your natural life. Get real people. The constitution is a piece of paper that has been used and abused for over two hundred years to divide and conquer the common people with. God does not discriminate as to whom he shall judge, what in the hell gives a man the right to do so in Gods name. Yes, a "marriage" (which is nothing more than a piece of paper in mans eye's anyway) should be accepted by the IRS, insurance companies and so on. Otherwise, we as Americans should see to it that the constitution is exposed for what it is, bull*hit!

Insurance companies should recognize anyone you name. The IRS should tax everyone the same, reguardless of sexual affiliations. It is not the constituion, but religion that is the problem. Yet the constituion defends your right to your religion. That shows how fair & good it is! Your religion tries to be exclusive & discriminatory under the pretenses of love & goodness. That is Bull****!

Are you saying my religion, ha, I do not practice any religion. I try to be honest. Whom is really doing the judgeing here? 69 sweetness!

I am not judging I am merely defending the constitution which I cherish! I have 3 books here at my desk within arms reach, "PCs for dummies" "Windows xp for dummies" & "Miracle at Phildelpia"

time out for all of us, I am sorry I offended anyone, I obviously did.

To stay on topic, my point is this, The gays want thier marriges to be recognised so that they will recieve the same validation & benifits as straights. They certainly deserve this. The problem comes with combining a legal contract with a sacrement. They should be seperate.Go to the church for a wedding & make a contract for legal issues.I think your sister, cousin, best friend,lover, wife or whomever you chose should be able to benifit from your love & work. Keep religion & sex out of it. The only place government should have in family affairs is to protect the rights of parents & minor children.