Gays Marry near New York

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
Yes, in some ways this is about money and frankly, I see that as the root of many of our other "crossroads issues". Illegal immigration for instance is another one that immediately comes to mind. Maybe what really needs to happen is that the income tax and its associated code needs to be junked and we go to a VAT, or sales tax method of collection. That will remove the issue of preference, ie the redistribution of benefits and once that happens, i think most folks will no longer care what others do as it no longer wil affect them in the pocket book.

Yes, except you will still have politicians smiting ordinary citizens on a moral basis alone, to get campaign contributions. So while you're at it, enact major campaign finance reform. The specifics of which I don't have a clue of where to start.

[Robert J. Yates]

I don't disagree with that at all but its going to take more than a little reform IMO - both parties are pretty heavily intertwined with their money bases - kinda like letting the fox guuard the henhouse. But then, that is a whole nother topic to kick around isn't it

[cbassett]

Well, what if the fox happens to be vegetarian??

[Robert J. Yates]

Not allowed, or else highly discouraged by the 2 foxes doing the guarding. Nader's uphill battle to get on the ballot in each state is a good example.

[cbassett]

Nader does have the gaunt, washed-out, look of a vegetarian doesn't he?

[Robert J. Yates]

LOL, he's also not married nor has he ever been married. I'd say thats real suspicious

[Darrell C]

Not that there's anything wrong with that

[shmekelhead]

Anybody get his ID? Maybe it will say?

[cbassett]

The proposition to require all unmarried vegetarians to carry proper I.D. identifying themselves as such, hasn't passed yet. It's on the ballots for tomorrow.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by cbassett
The proposition to require all unmarried vegetarians to carry proper I.D. identifying themselves as such, hasn't passed yet. It's on the ballots for tomorrow.

How do you determine the sex of a vegetable?

[TObject]

Sexual reproduction in the vegetable kingdom is carried out by the coupling of the male and female parts of the generic formations united on a same plant or located on separate plants.

Clearly unconstitutional!

[Darrell C]

Not that there's anything wrong with that

[shmekelhead]

Originally posted by TObject
Sexual reproduction in the vegetable kingdom is carried out by the coupling of the male and female parts of the generic formations united on a same plant or located on separate plants.

Clearly unconstitutional!

Only in certain states. I do believe if I'm not mistaken some states allow this practice with permits.

[JLemieux]

I don't have the time or ambition to read this whole thread and will risk repeating what someone else may have said.
I would like to see gays have all the same rights as straight couples, but when they want to be "married" it seems to me that they are tying to normalize the abnormal.
I believe they don't have a choice in their orientation but that doesn't make it "normal" and it shouldn't be passed off as such. Afford them all the same rights but give it a name that is not associated with a "normal" union of a man and woman. If this is not accepted by them than we know what the real agenda is. On the other hand if the "normal" people don't like it, than we know what their adgenda is.

[cbassett]

I would expect that same-sex couples aspiring to be legally wed, consider themselves every bit as "normal" as the typical wed couple. I also suspect that the same same-sex couples aspiring to be legally wed, are doing so [at least in part] in order to obtain the state/federal recognized status of "legally wed" granted to "normal" hetero wed couples.

[cbassett]

While on the subject of "normal".
One reason I would like to see same-sex marriage legallized nationwide, would be for the additional statistic we could track- number of same-sex marriages that end up in divorce.

With the USA batting .500 in marriages that end in divorce, and with the marriages of convenience, and the Hollyweird marriages that last hardly long enough for the ink to dry, I'd like to have a metric on how long same-sex marriages stay together. What the h3ll is normal about the example currently being displayed by hetero marriages??

[kid4lyf]

My point was that Tracy attempted to make a huge deal over a mayor breaking a law. The mayor breaking that law is no different than my last 100 moving violations that I got away with.

Isn't part of his job description to uphold the law.

[shmekelhead]

So can I, or can I not marry my dog? And if not now, when? Isn't that the real question?

[kid4lyf]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
So can I, or can I not marry my dog? And if not now, when? Isn't that the real question?

Yea, it's just so narrow minded that these right wing radicals think marraige has to be kept in the same species.
Someone needs to get ISLA (inter-species love association) on this.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
So can I, or can I not marry my dog? And if not now, when? Isn't that the real question?

You can marry your dog.

Just don't marry more than one dog, because that would be perverse. I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment to keep those sickos from marrying more than one dog!

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
So can I, or can I not marry my dog? And if not now, when? Isn't that the real question?

I'd like to thank you for finally getting right to the crux of this issue. You've pretty much nailed why this is even an issue.

Those that barely lift an eyebrow over this and equate the granting of equal treatment under our Constitution to be a good thing will also most likely think or believe that homosexuals pretty much did not ask to be the way they are. They have no choice in the lot that life has handed them.

Those wanting to marry animals, clearly believe that this is a perverted choice and one made to celebrate perversion.

Very similar to trying to convince someone who is deathly afraid of guns that one laying there will never do any harm until picked up by a person and used.

Your fear will not let your mind ever view the issue clearly. It's that simple.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I'd like to thank you for finally getting right to the crux of this issue. You've pretty much nailed why this is even an issue.

Those that barely lift an eyebrow over this and equate the granting of equal treatment under our Constitution to be a good thing will also most likely think or believe that homosexuals pretty much did not ask to be the way they are. They have no choice in the lot that life has handed them.

Those wanting to marry animals, clearly believe that this is a perverted choice and one made to celebrate perversion.

Very similar to trying to convince someone who is deathly afraid of guns that one laying there will never do any harm until picked up by a person and used.

Your fear will not let your mind ever view the issue clearly. It's that simple.

I take it that you believe people are raising the "dog marriage" issue as an attempt to illustrate the purportedly ridiculous nature of a marriage between two people of the same sex. I sincerely believe that people should be allowed to form a civil union with an animal if they so desire.

If I am a single person, and wish to take advantage of the benefits and recognition that the government bestows upon married couples, then can't you just let me marry my dog? Why must I choose a human life partner?

[kid4lyf]

Originally posted by meatblanket
I take it that you believe people are raising the "dog marriage" issue as an attempt to illustrate the purportedly ridiculous nature of a marriage between two people of the same sex. I sincerely believe that people should be allowed to form a civil union with an animal if they so desire.

If I am a single person, and wish to take advantage of the benefits and recognition that the government bestows upon married couples, then can't you just let me marry my dog? Why must I choose a human life partner?

Meat, you one scary mofo.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by kid4lyf
Meat, you one scary mofo.

Why would you say that?

You must be a cat person!

[kid4lyf]

Originally posted by meatblanket
Why would you say that?

You must be a cat person!

Actually, I love dogs, though not in the Biblical sense. I love my kids too. Which is why I would keep them away from Micheal Jackson too.

[cbassett]

Consider that a domestic "union" does not require sexual relations. Consider those unable to perform, for physical or psychological reasons, or those who's relationship was not built on nor ever included sexual intercourse. The absence of intercourse does not detract or devalue the value of their relationship.
These couples love and adore each other. They depend on each other. They provide each other emotional support, physical support when the other is in need.

Now consider the person who's raised his/her dog since birth. They've been together the entire dog's life. Their love and devotion is mutual and undieing. They depend on each other emotionally and physically. Beastiality is a disgusting perversion that will be entertained long enough to say that sex is not involved in the loving relationship between the two.

Sustanance, health care, and burial costs can really add up for pets. Granting civil unions and entitling the pet to domestic partner insurance coverage would be of great benefit to the aforementioned couple.

[Robert J. Yates]

........folks have been known to bequeath their entire estates to their pet which says to me that there are already some folks out there who consider their pets more of a life partner than some human they have met along the way.

[meatblanket]

I agree 100%, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

When you consider that dogs are "man's best friend" and that canine companions make life much better for people with disabilities, who are you to say I can't marry my friend, who happens to be a dog?

[cbassett]

So if a pet can benefit financially from inheriting your estate, why shouldn't it be able to benefit from health insurance coverage?

[cbassett]

Originally posted by meatblanket
I agree 100%, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

When you consider that dogs are "man's best friend" and that canine companions make life much better for people with disabilities, who are you to say I can't marry my friend, who happens to be a dog?

Your commets are oppressive and segregationist, showing complete lack of compasion for cat and bird lovers who consider their pets their best friend!