Proposition 8

[SkinBasket]

Or were we talking about something else again?

We could talk about Partial's latent gayness.

[hoosier]

Let's talk about why Tarlam!!!!! is so easily offended. I know, it's unpopular to pick on Tarlam!, but inquiring minds really want to know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And PIP, I really couldn't give a toss about how many gay parented kids' weddings you've been to. God didn't want it that way. He or She made us like we are and who are we to challenge Divine Design?

So, God didn't make all the gay animals?

Gay men and women have chosen this lifestyle throughout the centuries? They choose to be ostracized, killed humiliated, etc.

Being gay is part of nature.

[MJZiggy]

Look at what you people have done!! One thread and I have to agree with Harlan, Skinbasket AND Tyrone? Yeesh. First off to the question that started the whole thing.

Partial. Have a little imagination and learn to think on your feet. It comes in very handy in parenting. Until then, go with Skin's advice and DO. NOT. HAVE. CHILDREN. You do not explain the birds and bees to little kids. It is unnecessary. Give them a simple answer and it will be fine.

As to the question of gay marriage, I have to agree with Harlan. I think I probably even said so earlier in the thread, but if there are consenting adults that we are willing to legislate should not be married, then that's fine. Get the government out of the marriage business and put it in church where it belongs. Make a legal union between two people (gay or straight) called a civil union and leave God's definition to his church. Same rights apply to all in a civil union by the way.

Lastly, Tar, much as I love ya, and I think you are entitled to your own views, if we should accept that God made us like we are, then you have to accept that God made about 10% of us gay for whatever reason. Maybe he did it as a test to see how his children treated their fellow humans, you know that first stone and judgment stuff Zool was talking about.

There. Problem solved. Now can we please find an easier source of geothermal heat rather than core drilling or something so we can solve an actual problem? You're worried about what to tell your kids, P, think about how you're going to explain to them that their parents generations ran them out of oil when there were renewable options that weren't properly pursued. You'll find two guys holding hands a much easier conversation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

The consitution has more force than the popular will.

appeals, lawyers and judges determine if laws are constitutional.

Maybe we should not have a constitution or bill of rights, just let the people decide everything. or not. there's some wisdom behind setting some principles above the sway of popular opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So, God didn't make all the gay animals?

God didn't make, all the gay animals,and it don't rain, in indianapolis in the summer time.
And there's no such thing as dr. seuss or disney land and mother goose, no nursery rhymes.
God didn't make little green apples, and it don't snow in minneapolis when the winter comes.
And there's no such thing as make-believe, puppy dogs or autumn leaves, no bb guns.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Re: Proposition 8

That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has

Two years ago, WI passed an amendment prohibiting civil unions.

Did you vote for or against it?

[Harlan Huckleby]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

[Kiwon]

Being gay is part of nature.

----------------------><-----------------------

[hoosier]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

The Jews did it.

[Partial]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

[Cy]

Oh, and please leave God out of it. Not everyone in this country is Christian, or religious for that matter. And, unless I missed something in American History class, God didn't write our Constitution or make any of the amendments to it. I do recall learning something about separation of church and state. Unless I was seeing that in my daydreams while the teacher was telling us how God made this wonderful country, I don't think it matters what is said in the Bible. Homosexuality may be a Christian sin, but it is not an American crime to be homosexual - even in public.

Cy: Has nothing to do with God.

It has to do with language. Up until the rise of deconstructistic linguistic theory, we could assume that words in our language had universal meaning. If I, say, said, "Bring your family over for dinner," I should not expect you to bring your union family, or your church family.

Society, if it is exist peacefully, must have a shared understanding of its most basic means of communication, the word.

Language is unarguably a product of nothing less than tradition. Laws did not put language into effect. Progressive elites did not bestow upon the humble masses the gift of language. Even Obama did not give us language. It is the product of tradition.

"Marriage" has a specific, traditional meaning in our language. And that meaning is "One man, one woman, for the general and usually typical purposes of producing children and thus creating a family." As my son said, "how can two men have a baby?"

Now, what is exactly is meant by the assumption that two men ought to be allowed to marry?

a.) That one man ought to be able to drive his penis into the rectum of another, and that be sanctified by the state? But most of our Sodomy laws have been overturned. That's not an issue.

b.) That one man ought to be able to love another man? But that's never been an issue. I love lots of men.

c.) That one man ought to have rights in terms of hospital visits, etc. with regard to another man? It would seem that this issue is something that any number of reasonable laws could allow, for friends, for father/son, for two males who happen to love each other or ram their penises into each other's rectums. Whatever, that ought not be an issue.

But why marriage? What is the end purpose of changing the traditional meaning of the word "marriage"? Unless it is to fundamentally destabalize a traditional and historical institution.

Really now, think about it.

What if I began a movement to redefine the word "race" in all our laws (and in our constitution) to mean, "the human race," so that the issue of such laws is not to protect the rights of blacks vis a vis whites, but rather the rights of animals vis a vis the rights of those in the human race?

My opponents would rightly conclude that I was being more of an iconoclast than actually contributing to the useful advancement of our Republic.

And they'd be right.

[Partial]

god if only partials parents were gay, then we wouldn't be hear listing to this bullshit right now

Dude, you know what? This post is a bunch of BS. Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

I'm not some freak for not wanting to have to have that conversation and confuse a child. I'd say my response is pretty normal.

I realize most of you guys get all uppity about being politically correct, but if you answer yes that you're comfortable having that discussion... well, then I'm sincerely concerned for your children.