you're doing a fine job of dodging, hurdling and ignoring yourself. and the pretext you came up with to rehash this discussion was pretty weak as well.
See, unlike the religious right, perhaps the leaders of the gay movement know when to pick their battles. Come on, if thousands of gay protesters marched on Capital Hill decrying this "injustice", people here would call them whackjobs and say that "its just a TV show, whats the big deal". I'm sure that many gay activists see the gay actors on this show as sellouts, but they've got more serious fish to fry. Besides, where would Hollywood be without gay men pretending to be straight?
You missed one before that, too. To clarify this question; are there or are there not excpetions to the definition of marriage as being for the purpose of procreation? If there are exceptions, then where you draw the line is no longer based on this precept, but on your subjective deliniation of what does and what does not constitute marriage, IOW, back to square one. What kind of family? This, too, has been redefined countless times throughout history. Why? Either it's an exclusionary qualification, or it isn't. Another point...what about heterosexual couples who can procreate who have no intention of so doing. My best friend and his wife are an example. Should their marriage be outlawed? Because when you say capacity for procreation is a definitive necessity for marriage, and then make excpetions based on gender, you are reversing the intial point. Says who?
who wants to make bets that padgett's kids will turn gay? thats how it works, you hate gays: your son will become gay, you don't like blacks: your daughter will marry a black guy, hate liberals?: your kid will become a hippy
It's really a shallow comment to allege that someone you don't know hates gays. That is absolutely not true. I do not condone their conduct, and I do think that it should be discouraged, not endorsed, by society. I don't believe that I've written anything that suggests otherwise. But thanks for the well wishes.
Looks like you need the Kramer solution....... JERRY Well it looks like you've adjusted to the boxers.. KRAMER Wellll, I wouldn't go as far as that. JERRY You went back to the Jockeys? KRAMER Wrong again. JERRY [pause] Oh, no. ELAINE What? What?.. JERRY Don't you see what's goin' on here??? .. No boxers, no Jockeys.. ELAINE Eeaawww... JERRY The only thing between us is a thin layer of gabardine.. JERRY Kramer, say it isn't so. KRAMER Oh, it be so. I'm out there, Jerry, an' I'm lllovin' every minute of it!!!
Virgin is a such a harsh word, Why don't we say... Pure of both body and mind? oh **** it, I'm a loser sue me
If you mean, "Can you get married if you do not or cannot have children?", then yes, there are exceptions. No. I draw the line as broadly as practical. Heterosexuals (as a whole) were created capable of bearing children. Homosexual activity cannot ever result in reproduction. Just because there's a few heterosexuals cannot bear children or choose not to bear children does not mean it is not most practical to draw the line there. Mother, father and children. That doesn't mean that you can't have other 'families' as a result of failed marriages, remarriages, etc., but it doesn't extend all the way to 2 guys and a chimp, 2 girls and a kid, or a guy a 3 girls. Family, as I understand, hasn't ever been redefined from its base form, the root of which is a man and a woman. There are other versions b/c of legal issues, etc., but not any that stray from man/woman root. Don't think it's practical to make such a broad exclusion. Not enough reason to. You don't legislate based on the extremes; you legislate based on the norms. Of course their marriage shouldn't be outlawed. You don't have to have children to get married, but heterosexuals are capable of doing it barring medical problems, and homosexuals are not. No I am not. You don't have to allow for every single exception to make a valid law. It is not right to discriminate against 2 heterosexuals b/c they cannot or choose not to have children. Choosing to have children or not is not the be-all, end-all of getting married. But that does not necessarily lead to homosexuals being allowed to get married, by any stretch. Surely you see that delineation, whether you agree with it or not.
yeah tell that to my friends Seriously though I am as sex-crazed as the next 19 year old male but I do happen to think waiting for marriage is the right thing to do. And in my case it seems to not be much of an obstacle.
dude, that's freaking awesome...don't let your friends bother you on that one. way too important...and much too personal...to allow some ridiculous social pressure to affect you otherwise. convictions are great....convictions with actions behind them are greater.
Thanks Max, one thing i have always done in life was stick to my own beliefs and not care what other people thought, I've seen peer pressure destory the lives of people who were once close to me and promised myself I would be an example of how to buck the trend.
What no one has mentioned is the point of laws. Laws are there to protect the people and state. There is nothing about gays getting maried that will put either in jeopardy.
