And until some idiot anti-SSM people point out to me exactly where it's effected, harmed, or changed anything in my own marriage, I'm all for any consenting adult marrying any other consenting adult of their choice.
[/quote]


All they point out is that the harm will occur when the definition changes.

The heterosexuals have damaged the institution of marriage, so it is about time that gays and lesbians fix it. Call it eminent domain!

All they point out is that the harm will occur when the definition changes.[/quote]

Deffinitions have changed throughout time. The only way the meaning of a word changes, is when the person themselves changes how they feel about that word.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when inter-racial marriages were allow.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when couple decided to use birthcontrol methods to not have children in their marriages.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when sterile couples decided to marry.

The meaning of marriage for the individuals didn't change when couples started using fertility clinics and adoption.

And the meaning of marriage for the individual will not change because two strangers of the same sex are married either.

To imply that it would or does is a straight out lie in my opinion. Because I know that it hasn't effected my marriage period. The only people that can effect my marriage or it's meaning is my hubby and myself.

Deffinitions have changed throughout time. The only way the meaning of a word changes, is when the person themselves changes how they feel about that word.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when inter-racial marriages were allow.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when couple decided to use birthcontrol methods to not have children in their marriages.

The meaning of marriage for individuals didn't change when sterile couples decided to marry.

The meaning of marriage for the individuals didn't change when couples started using fertility clinics and adoption.

And the meaning of marriage for the individual will not change because two strangers of the same sex are married either.

To imply that it would or does is a straight out lie in my opinion. Because I know that it hasn't effected my marriage period. The only people that can effect my marriage or it's meaning is my hubby and myself.[/quote]

The only people who could be possibly effected are those who are insecure in their own marriages. Just my opinion...

The only people who could be possibly effected are those who are insecure in their own marriages. Just my opinion...[/quote]

Ok, somehow I'm missing what you're saying. From my end, it looks as if you just reposted your comment, that I was responding to, as well as my response?

Or am I just seeing double?

sorry, i am quoting and I and/or my browser is messing with me.

I was trying to say:

The only people who could be possibly effected are those who are insecure in their own marriages. Just my opinion...

People get married without having children all the time. Children are not necessary for that union, nevertheless homosexual couples have children all the time! Two gay men meet two gay women to produce children for both couples.

Having legalized gay marriage is just a matter of time as there is no reason bigotry can be a reason to prevent two concenting adults from forming a union.

I couldn't agree with you more Akuma.

Great post Jaxian
You say that nature did not intend for people to be homosexual. However, that statement is irrational. Nature is not a thinking creature: it has no mind and thus it can have no intentions. "Nature" is just a term used to describe our environment. You might as well say that a rock did not intend for homosexuals to exist.

I disagree. But nature intended for humans to have two legs and two arms. They are also intended to not be born conjoined. Both those human absolutes have defects that can be caused by problems during gestation. They are defects. Just as homosexuality is a mental defect caused by a genetic or hormonal miscue during gestation. The rock statement made no sense. And I defined natural in my post. Your definition does not match mine.

The word "natural" has nothing to do with "intentions." Natural things are anything which exists in nature. Everything in our world is natural. Humans exist through the natural process of birth. Heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality is also natural.

Heterosexuality is natural, homosexuality is "naturally occuring". Just as any other mental birth defect caused by something during gestation, that is "naturally occuring".

But that doesn't mean anything. Murder is natural, and kindness is natural. Whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

I disagree actually. Murder and kindness and all those are behaviors. They happen but aren't natural. You don't have a kindness organ. You may be born with a kind disposition, and even if you are born kind, outside forces may force you to become a bitch. According to homosexuals, outside forces can't force them to be heterosexual.

So how do we judge whether something is right or wrong? Well, things that help people are right, and things that harm people are wrong. Homosexuality helps those involved, and it doesn't harm anyone. Homosexuality is therefore right.

That's applying morals to science though. Chinese people justify infanticide, the terrorists rationalize suicide and murder, and the U.S. calls "accidental murders" collateral damage. Rationalizing killing innocent people. So that idea doesn't pass muster. Everything that is "right" to all. Where a heterosexual person may be an asshole, the state of being heterosexual is a natural absolute.

The problem is that you are confusing "nature" with "God." God is a thinking creature who might have intentions. Nature is not. If you mean to say "God", then say God so we can have that debate.

Wouldn't that be easy. But then we would have to debate the concept of GOD. I would be just as apt to say he doesn't exist. That's a never ending debate.

Evolution suggests that traits which cause creatures to be more likely to reproduce will become commonplace. Evolution does not say anything is "supposed to be" one way or another. Evolution is just a process.

And I disagree. Humans are still growing taller, women are getting fatter and everything, yet there are no discernible difference between the heterosexual and homosexual human or any other supposed naturally heterosexual animal. If homosexuality has been around for so long and is so prevalent, why is there known difference between the orientation even though homosexuals have no hope of repoducing. You would think the internal reproductive organs would atrophy. Even astronauts in space start losing bone mass after a short timie in space due to lack of use. Homosexuality is a defect.

An animal with camoflauged skin may be more likely to reproduce than an animal with bright red skin. However, this does not make the bright-red animal worse, nor does it devalue that animal in any fashion. The ONLY thing it means is that the camoflauged trait is more likely to be passed on.

But if the animal is supposed to have camouflaged skin due to the environment, they will be killed or won't be able to hunt. A bright red polar bear is a goner. Once again you use the word "may". Every one of my points have the distinct ability to be used with the words "can" "is" or "does".
Albinism is a defect.
Albinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not rational to judge the worth of something based on whether or not it appears through evolution.

I never judged the worth. I only stated that the condition of homosexuality is caused by a congenital abnormality that crosses up the innate instinct to partner with another. It is you that is placing the worth aspect on it.

Our marriage laws create a legal institution designed to benefit only heterosexual couples. This obviously grants privledge to heterosexuals: they have recognition and benefits for their relationships, while homosexuals are denied these things. In short, heterosexuals are treated better than homosexuals.

But even when offered the same rights they still want the word marriage. Even though there is a distinct difference between a hetero and homo couple. A very important difference. One that is the basis of life. One that created said homosexual.

Now, you're saying that this isn't discrimination because it's always been that way. But stop and think about that for a moment, and I think you'll agree that this is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. Just because we've always treated a minority like dirt doesn't make it fair.

Actually I'm glad you went there...But that's another post altogether. But I would like to know what innate difference there is in the races as humans. Since you brought it up.

And I know of only one way to make it fair: change our laws so that they treat everyone the same. There is absolutely no reason to treat heterosexual couples any different than homosexual couples under the law, and anything less is not equal.

And you don't find that radical? That's funny. Homosexuality is no the equal to hetero...Nature took care of that.

You are wrong. Homosexuals absolutely SHOULD do everything they can to change a custom ingrained into our culture. Why? Because this custom is unfair to homosexuals. Now, I'm not saying homosexuals should dismantle marriage. They should change it in only one fashion: remove the restriction against homosexual couples getting married.

SCARY.

Baseball, too, is an American custom, ingrained into our culture. And at one time, black people weren't allowed to play baseball. So by your logic, black people shouldn't force white people to change baseball. But obviously that is an absurd thing to say. Baseball didn't need to be rewritten entirely, but the one rule that banned black people from playing it needed to be removed.

And my logic applies to that in what way. What innate diifference is there between white people and black people that would support that other than skin color. Because I still don't see women and men playing sports against each other. Applying YOUR logic that should be the case. I'll wait patiently for your answer.

And frankly, who cares about "customs" and "culture"? People talk about them like they're somehow important. But really, they just describe things that we've done for a long time. If we've done something evil for a long time, then we should stop doing it. A custom which hurts people is no custom worth preserving.nd
Well hell yeah then, lets just marry a buncha people and throw the dog in there too!!! Yeehhaw.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=213 25057
Every fringe group has a group that supports it. Your support of homosexuality is just as natural to you as a zoophilia is to him. And bestiality isn't illegal in every state in the U.S.
http://www.inhumane.org/data/beastialitylaws.html
And the "consent" argument doesn't hold water since I'm sure animals don't consent to being held in zoos, eaten,ridden, or pretty much "discriminated against". I mean if you want to stick by YOUR definition that everything is natural.

Not to mention, since the beginning of time hetrosexuals have had babies without being married. Marriage isn't nescessary for having children, nor is having children mean that one has to be married.

It's all about people wanting other people to fit into nice, tidy boxes. And since most people don't live in boxes, expecting them to is pretty useless.

You can want in one hand, poop in the other. Guess which one will fill up quickest.