what percentage of the gay vote will Santorum get?

[MODU]

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Penguins are advanced species?

------

Sat Dec 25, 1:31 AM ET

TOKYO (AFP) - Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said.

A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said.

Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying.

It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said.

Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said.

Ueda was not available for comment on the report.

The nice thing about this, since the gay Penguins will not be able to reproduce, Darwin's theory will lead the way to the survival of the fittest . . . being straight Penguins . . . hence the term "natural."

[J. J.]

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Penguins are advanced species?

------

Sat Dec 25, 1:31 AM ET

TOKYO (AFP) - Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said.

A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said.

Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying.

It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said.

Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said.

Ueda was not available for comment on the report.

The nice thing about this, since the gay Penguins will not be able to reproduce, Darwin's theory will lead the way to the survival of the fittest . . . being straight Penguins . . . hence the term "natural."

I've also heard the same about Lesbianism and seagulls.

I have heard that rats, in overcrowding situations, will exibit homosexual activities, but I couldn't find the direct studies on the web.

[Platypus]

I didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hmmn, i'm going to be a homo".

Although, I did admit to myself that I was gay on the 3rd of December, 2002.

When I realised I was almost 15 and not sexually attracted to even the hottest of females, I spent about three months just staring at breasts trying to feel something, or at legs or hair or especially faces, and got nothing. Not to go into to much detail, but a male thumb gets me more excited then a naked woman, and I'm not dissapointed there is no 'cure'

[J. J.]

I didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hmmn, i'm going to be a homo".

Although, I did admit to myself that I was gay on the 3rd of December, 2002.

When I realised I was almost 15 and not sexually attracted to even the hottest of females, I spent about three months just staring at breasts trying to feel something, or at legs or hair or especially faces, and got nothing. Not to go into to much detail, but a male thumb gets me more excited then a naked woman, and I'm not dissapointed there is no 'cure'

I didn't wake up one morning and decide I was going to be heterosexual either, because I have no idea what triggers sexual preference. 

Of course maybe something in those 15 years triggered your turn down that path.  Or possibly it was a number of factors.  I realize it's not a willful choice, but it still may be a choice at a subconscious level.

[Redefeatbush04]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

The problem is the word sanctity which is literally "saintliness or holiness". Their are no non-religious reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed, and therefore to disallow gay marriage would be to respect an establishment of religion, which as everyone knows is in violation of the first amendment. I understand that you are not comfortable around gays but did you ever stop to think that being hated and mocked by all makes them a bit uncomfortable. To amend the constitution to destroy marriage between them does not improve your quality of life, it only destroys theirs. Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

[Cashcow]

I agree with Dan. Homosexuality is not unnatural, merely unusual.

On another note, Santorum doesn't hate gays, he just let a stupid comment slip. As much as I hate the man, this has been overblown.

[J. J.]

The problem is the word sanctity which is literally "saintliness or holiness". Their are no non-religious reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed, and therefore to disallow gay marriage would be to respect an establishment of religion, which as everyone knows is in violation of the first amendment. I understand that you are not comfortable around gays but did you ever stop to think that being hated and mocked by all makes them a bit uncomfortable. To amend the constitution to destroy marriage between them does not improve your quality of life, it only destroys theirs. Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

You'll note that I have not once raised a religious argument about this; I'll start there.

There are some non-religious reasons.

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

[they don't love you like i love you]

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

sterile people can't reproduced either and they can get married. irrelevant.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

so we cover this in the marriage laws. lots of things cause legal troubles. that's why we have a system. it's not worth removing rights from a portion of the population

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

and what harm comes from this. List some actual problems that come from this "lack of stability in society" nonsense.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

And if MA wants to permit interracial marriages, MS shouldn't be forced to as well.

I'm suprised no Republican has answered the original question. Come on Phil, tell me how gays love Santorum too, just as there are supposedly loads of Kerry voters who worship at his feet.

[Keystone Phil]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

[Smash255]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

[opebo]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

The next thing you know they'll be wanting to make birth control illegal again!

[Keystone Phil]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

The next thing you know they'll be wanting to make birth control illegal again!

I don't approve of "the pill" but I would not call for it to be illegal.

[Keystone Phil]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

[Smash255]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

[Keystone Phil]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

Well when we look at this situation, Smash, wouldn't you agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have the ability to create a child?

[Smash255]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

Well when we look at this situation, Smash, wouldn't you agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have the ability to create a child?

Granted, but old people don't have that ability, sterile people don't have that ability.

You mentioned that its not the sterile person or the old person's fault that they can't have kids.  You know what its not the gay person's fault either, its not their fault that they happen to be gay. 

[Keystone Phil]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

Well when we look at this situation, Smash, wouldn't you agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have the ability to create a child?

You know what its not the gay person's fault either, its not their fault that they happen to be gay. 

We don't really know if that's true, Smash.

[opebo]

'Fault' doesnt' enter into it because it is neither better nor worse than heterosexuality.  Additionally it is none of your business.

[Redefeatbush04]

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

Not all of those who get married have children, furthermore, it should be viewed as a positive thing. Our planet is already overpopulated. I have probablly mentioned it before, but if everyone on earth consumed what the average american consumes, we would need four earths. It is essential that we keep our population stable. Allowing gays to marry does this. If they are not allowed to marry each other they will end up doing what Mcgreevey did and marrying someone anyway. Lets pretend for a sec that there is a lesbian couple and a gay couple, and that both couples want to get married. One gay guy and one lesbian marry. The other gay guy and the other lesbian marry. The two couples move in together with the gay guys in one room and the lesbians in another. They all get the benefits of marriage. Is this ok?

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

So you believe that gays should not marry because too many people are getting married and too many court cases resulting, maybe if the divorce rate were a tad lower we wouldn't have this problem. This issue will not go away once gay marriage is banned and I'm sorry but that seems like a weak reason. "too many people are getting married so it is ok to discriminate". They should be looked at the same and the marriages carried out in the same manner. There does not need to be a seperate system for gays and even if there does, which is highly doubt, why is the creation of more jobs is a bad thing.

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

Everyone is looking for stability in society. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary that gays be allowed to marry. I agree that gays and straights view things differently but allowing them to marry will not change their views on societal values (public education) enough to cause any problems.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

What about the death penalty? Should it be illegal because TX permits it and MA feels that it should be forced to permit it as well?

[Redefeatbush04]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

Well when we look at this situation, Smash, wouldn't you agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have the ability to create a child?

Yes they can't have kids but this does not affect you in any way so it should not bother you. Yet for some reason seeing gays benefit from something really pisses you off because it gives them equal rights and you want to feel superior.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's it. I want to feel superior. Gays are suppressed in this country. They are not equal. Is that what you want to hear? I don't actually believe anything I just typed but at this point you guys are so convinced that people like myself and Santorum hate gays that maybe that will satisfy you.

Hey redefeat, how about abortion? You're Pro Life, right? Abortion doesn't directly affect you in anyway so why be Pro Life?

I used to have a lot of respect for you. However, now you come here and tell me that I hate people and want to feel superior. You should be ashamed of your comment.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's it. I want to feel superior. Gays are suppressed in this country. They are not equal. Is that what you want to hear? I don't actually believe anything I just typed but at this point you guys are so convinced that people like myself and Santorum hate gays that maybe that will satisfy you.

Hey redefeat, how about abortion? You're Pro Life, right? Abortion doesn't directly affect you in anyway so why be Pro Life?

I used to have a lot of respect for you. However, now you come here and tell me that I hate people and want to feel superior. You should be ashamed of your comment.

I respect you too. You know a lot about politics and I don't want our disagreement on this issue to turn bitter but you have not provided a concrete explanation as to why gay marriage should be disallowed. The relationship between gays not being able to have kids and you is significantly weaker than the rrelationship between legalizing the murder of children and me. I could have been one of those children phil. It would have affected me then. The only way that gays not having kids could even possibly affect you is if you are the gay. And even then it only affects you in a positive way.

[J. J.]

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

sterile people can't reproduced either and they can get married. irrelevant.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

so we cover this in the marriage laws. lots of things cause legal troubles. that's why we have a system. it's not worth removing rights from a portion of the population

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

and what harm comes from this. List some actual problems that come from this "lack of stability in society" nonsense.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

And if MA wants to permit interracial marriages, MS shouldn't be forced to as well.

I'm suprised no Republican has answered the original question. Come on Phil, tell me how gays love Santorum too, just as there are supposedly loads of Kerry voters who worship at his feet.

1.  The vast majority of different sex couples can reproduce.  Are you claiming the same think about the vast majority of same sex couples?

2.  You are not removing rights; you are creating are contractural rights.  They did not exist prior to creating.  How those will work will be complex.

3.  There have been profound changes when the family unit changes.  One was transition from the old-style extended or "farm family" beginning the 1910's, to the "nuclear family."  This created a new society and, in some ways spawned the need for new programs, such as Social Security and Welfare.  I'm not saying that these are wrong; I am saying they were changes needed because society changed.

Here is a simple point, can a man "marry" his widowed grandfather to get Social Security survivors benefits?

4.  Race is one of those "protected areas," rightly, by statute.  Sexual preference, and a few other things, are not.

Now, let's look at one that isn't, ago.  I went back to 1982, so the numbers might have changed, but the principle is still the same.  In liberal MA, someone below the age of 16 need both parental consent and court permission to marry.  In you neighboring state of KS, a 12 year old girl needed only parental consent.  Should a 12 year old girl, even if permitted to by her parents, been permitted to fly from Boston to Topeka, marry her boyfriend and then return to Boston?  My answer is that this would still violate the laws of MA.

Why should this be any different if it's a man and a boy and it it's legal in one state.  The states do have a role, established in caselaw (which the court addressed in the  "Loving Case," which overturned the VA ban interracial marriage).

[J. J.]

I've referred to most of this in my response to opebigot and correct your grossest error.  :-)

J. J. :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the death penalty? Should it be illegal because TX permits it and MA feels that it should be forced to permit it as well?

You have missed the point entirely.  TX has the death penalty; MA does not.  I have no problem with this.  I would have a problem, the same problem, if TX said, "Since we have a death penalty, MA, you have to have one, too."

It would not bother me in the least if MA legislature, or any other state's legislature chooses to allow same sex marriage.   I do have a problem when the courts say, okay, because another state does this, you have to as well.

That why I support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.  Now, that is a lot different from what you thought I said.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's it. I want to feel superior. Gays are suppressed in this country. They are not equal. Is that what you want to hear? I don't actually believe anything I just typed but at this point you guys are so convinced that people like myself and Santorum hate gays that maybe that will satisfy you.

Hey redefeat, how about abortion? You're Pro Life, right? Abortion doesn't directly affect you in anyway so why be Pro Life?

I used to have a lot of respect for you. However, now you come here and tell me that I hate people and want to feel superior. You should be ashamed of your comment.

I respect you too. You know a lot about politics and I don't want our disagreement on this issue to turn bitter but you have not provided a concrete explanation as to why gay marriage should be disallowed.

You claimed I was full of hate and wanted to feel superior. You have lost my respect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was a discussion about gay marriage. It affects me because I see marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not going to apologize because I care about something that might not directly affect me and my life. Right now you are alive. Abortion did not directly affect you so according to your argument, you shouldn't care.