Please explain this to me

[_The Dude]

The legitimization of a physically and mentally dangerous lifestyle choice. The creation of public bad examples of male and female role-models for children.

So paternalistic.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, heteros have done horribly with it. Based on the evidence, homosexuals will do much, much worse. I want marriage to be healed. Not written off as a lost cause.

You know, usually I find you good for a laugh, but sometimes, you post some incredibly dumbass $h*t, like what I just quoted. There's a part of me that hopes you were trying to be funny and simply failed.

Would you care to dispute what I said?

The argument is stupid Nehor. So what if Gays are less faithful than straights. Heterosexuals have blown it big time as well. Oh let's see say 50% or more are unfaithful but maybe in the gay community it is 65%....big deal. Based on your argument heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either.

[Guest]

Unless gays start becoming much more monogamous the redefinition of marriage is a social contract with no promise of sexual faithfulness implicit in the agreement.

But based on this monogamous marriage between heterosexuals is a waste as well. IRC over half cheat on spouses.

I agree. It's (Edit: meaning cheating spouses) a disgrace and it needs to stop.

Edit: Heterosexuals are doing enough to destroy marriage on their own that legalizing homosexual marriage might just be shooting the dying animal that heteros are already beating to death. Ideally we can stop them from beating it to death. I'm not under any delusion that gay marriage will be stopped or heterosexual marriages will become more faithful but I'd rather go down fighting.

[_Jason Bourne]

Unless gays start becoming much more monogamous the redefinition of marriage is a social contract with no promise of sexual faithfulness implicit in the agreement.

But based on this monogamous marriage between heterosexuals is a waste as well. IRC over half cheat on spouses.

I agree. It's a disgrace and it needs to stop.

You really try hard to be funny but rarely are. Sorry. That is just the way it is.

[_The Nehor]

Unless gays start becoming much more monogamous the redefinition of marriage is a social contract with no promise of sexual faithfulness implicit in the agreement.

But based on this monogamous marriage between heterosexuals is a waste as well. IRC over half cheat on spouses.

I agree. It's a disgrace and it needs to stop.

You really try hard to be funny but rarely are. Sorry. That is just the way it is.

That wasn't a joke. It was badly worded. I'm saying that cheating heterosexuals need to stop.

Edit: Fixed.

[_The Nehor]

Yes, heteros have done horribly with it. Based on the evidence, homosexuals will do much, much worse. I want marriage to be healed. Not written off as a lost cause.

You know, usually I find you good for a laugh, but sometimes, you post some incredibly dumbass $h*t, like what I just quoted. There's a part of me that hopes you were trying to be funny and simply failed.

Would you care to dispute what I said?

The argument is stupid Nehor. So what if Gays are less faithful than straights. Heterosexuals have blown it big time as well. Oh let's see say 50% or more are unfaithful but maybe in the gay community it is 65%....big deal. Based on your argument heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either.

No, I think we should have laws against adultery and enforce them. Again, I'm under no delusion that this is going to happen either.

Oh, and with gays try the upper nineties for percentages of those who are not faithful. Many of the spouses wouldn't care though as they're doing the same thing.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes, heteros have done horribly with it. Based on the evidence, homosexuals will do much, much worse. I want marriage to be healed. Not written off as a lost cause.

You know, usually I find you good for a laugh, but sometimes, you post some incredibly dumbass $h*t, like what I just quoted. There's a part of me that hopes you were trying to be funny and simply failed.

Would you care to dispute what I said?

Well, I wouldn't be able to dispute it if you could produce the evidence of which you speak.

[_scipio337]

Potential gov't intervention into religious matters.

How so?

You look at the case of Catholic Charities in Boston and S.F., who got out of adoptions in general because they faced potential repurcussions.

Potential slippery slope, its conceivable, if gltb obtains federal protected status, that faiths don't perform said "marriages", they could face losing 503(c) status.

Its all very odd to me, because in the CA case, there was a pretty progressive "Domestic Partnership" law already on the books when In RE: Marriage was going through the lower courts.

CA FAMILY.CODE SECTION 397.5






.

Bump.


Can anyone explain what rights were denied under CA domestic partnership laws, or what additional rights have now been granted since CA has recognized SSM?

[_Scottie]

Oh, and with gays try the upper nineties for percentages of those who are not faithful. Many of the spouses wouldn't care though as they're doing the same thing.

CFR

[_Some Schmo]

What are the possible repercussions that we might face if we legalize same-sex marriage?

The legitimization of a physically and mentally dangerous lifestyle choice. The creation of public bad examples of male and female role-models for children.

What is any more physically or mentally dangerous about homosexuality than heterosexuality?

And I must say the some of the finest people I've ever met were gay. Most that I've met are extremely kind, hard-working, clean, articulate folks. I'd trust them far more as a role model for children over the kind of persona you present here; that's for certain.

And I hate to break it to you, but homosexuals are already out in public.

***

So Nehor, let me see if I understand your argument:

Heterosexuals have done a bad job with marriage, therefore, we shouldn't give it to homosexuals because they would make it worse? Is that the long and short of it?