Oh goody goody goody goody goody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

equality for all

gay or straight...we are all Americans with equal rights.

.

Yes We Can.

Happily, 38% represents the fringe. Just ignore him. He's a troll.

How would you like it if your marriage was determined by people "voting" on it? Preposterous, right? Well, it's reality for many people. This is wrong, and it shouldn't even have to be talked about. I cant wait for the day where it's far off in the past, where society can get to point where the average or normal human being will date people of both genders, as seen in futuristic games such as Mass Effect. Where there are no boundaries placed on love. It's free. It doesn't matter to which human being you fall in love with.

Religion was made to make people progress. Now all it does is hold us back. We are not living in the 1600s people. This is 2013. Wake up.

Afraid Canada disagrees with you, Mr. 38%, marriage is between two people who love each other.

Anyway enjoy the knowledge that you are on the wrong side of history.

You're views are irrelevant, I shall not address you again.

This is good news for fairminded people everywhere. With Rhode Island making same sex marriage legal, it completes a clean sweep of the New England states. I have always thought that New England's intolerant Puritan past is one reason the area is so tolerant now. We have seen what a mean-spirited theocracy looks like and we don't want anything to do with it. It may not be in everyone's conscious thoughts but I believe it has shaped our world view up here.

38%

Maybe you should move to homoland!!!!

You and your like-minded friends are now in the minority in the USA. More states will vote for marriage equality. Deal with it ....... or move to homophobe land.

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't pass the senate.

38%OfPedophilesAreGay

Marriage is between two consenting adults of the same sex. Read Loving Vs Virginia - April 10, 1967 court ruling. Marriage is a civil right in accordance with the 14th AMENDMENT. I also must have missed the part in the United States Constitution where it reads "We the People' Unless you are gay/lesbian.

We don't VOTE on who gets civil rights either. If we do, then i'd like to vote on yours.

The U.S Supreme Court ruling Lawrence Vs Texas 2003 legalized same sex between two consenting adults of the same sex. What an adult does on a child of a sexual nature is a CRIME.

Better yet, may you be below the roses to which we will be smelling as we celebrate the union of two people, gay or straight, joined in matrimony.

I personally think the most fair solution is to eliminate "Marriage" from the government lexicon altogether, even for heterosexual couples. Government will be in charge of legal civil unions between any two adults, regardless of sexual orientation. "Marriage" will be performed by any religious or social institution and will be ceremonial. Those institutions would have the option to perform ceremonies for gay couples as their religious beliefs allow, but they'd also have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. This provides the most freedom for the most people and maintains the separation of Church and State.

38%OfPedophilesAreGay

How many times are you going to post the same comment?

I bet those peeps in the pic don't have green cards.

& to "38% of P.R.G."....too bad ur mommy doesn't believe in abortion.

YAY for RI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree PBD, but we have to amend over 1400+ federal/state/local laws to accomplish that, unless the activist conservative SCOTUS actually rules correctly this session and declares DOMA and Prop 8 (and all other state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage) unconstitutional. With such two rulings, that will then make this whole issue and all 1400+ discriminatory laws unconstitutional.

anti-trust proponent

Finally someone who has an understanding of the legal system. Unfortunately, what you are describing is not going to happen. SCOTUS will over ride DOMA and will end up declaring all laws restricting marriage between a man and a woman un constitutional .

#1.13 <-- correction. Marriage is between two consenting adults of the same or opposite sex.

Pale,

In New Hampshire, religious institutions are not required to perform same sex marriages if their doctrine prohibits it, so they have no room to complain except to get all high-horse and try to force everybody to follow their doctrine. Which did not work in NH. When the legislature first made it legal, the state was quite divided, but now marriage equality enjoys an approval rating in the 60s. Once people realize that a) they know the individuals who will benefit because they are their friends and neighbors and b) there is absolutely no effect on anybody else, the objections seem to fade away.

While I like your civil union idea in principle (that's how they do it in France, for example), I think that marriage is so entrenched in its current form here in the US that anything else would be seen as something less and rightly so.

That is my hope ItsAboutTime. But with this SCOTUS, I'm still afraid that it will be a 5-4 ruling supporting both. It all depends on Kennedy and Roberts at this point. We already know that Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will not rule any of these laws unconstitutional.

I've lived for over 68 years with this battle going on (especially since Stonewall uprising and the beginning of the Gay Rights movement.) I've dreamed of the day when all 1400+ laws that give special rights to heterosexual married couples would be overturned as unconstitutional and a denial of equal rights for singles and same-sex couples. As a single person (and a gay person), I am a firm believer in a taxation system where all income taxes (federal, state, and local) are based solely on the gross income of the individual, with NO deductions, credits, subsidies of any kind. Federal income tax should be 0% tax on income up to $25K, 15% tax on all income over $25K up to $250K, 30% tax on all income over $250K up to $750K, and 45% tax on all income over $750K...all income meaning no matter what the source of that income, whether wages, capital gains, dividends, alimony, estate, or any other source...legal or illegal.

All other special rights granted to those holding one of those "civil marriage contracts (licenses)" should be declared as unconstitutional unless those same privileges/rights are extended to ALL citizens of this country, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, and any and all other such rights granted by those 1400+ laws.

anti-trust proponent

Absolutely outstanding comment. Outstanding on equal rights. Mixed thoughts on the taxes, but I understand where you are coming from. I do agree about any special financial benefits given to married couples. Quite honestly, single people are penalized in some ways because of 'marriage' rights.

That's a battle we'll have to face later current tax code we have in place now really needs a serious review and revamping. That will be like pulling teeth in Washington, with no one willing to really compromise on anything.

Again, outstanding and well thought out/communicated comment. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Government will be in charge of legal civil unions between any two adults, regardless of sexual orientation.

That is exactly what "marriage" already is: a legal civil union.

"Marriage" will be performed by any religious or social institution and will be ceremonial.

You are confusing the civil contract that is "marriage" with the religious rite that is "holy matrimony".

Those institutions would have the option to perform ceremonies for gay couples as their religious beliefs allow, but they'd also have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs.

Churches already have that right, and NONE of the same-sex marriage laws infringe that right.

I've actually posted similar comments on the 1400+ "marriage" laws every time any such related story on same-sex marriage appears. As a member of the gay community, I've seen far too often the damaging effects of this discrimination. I tried to live up to society's expectations (and family expectations) back in the 70's and suffered through a 16 year hetero marriage. What a mistake that was. After that, when I revised my will, I put in a clause that my attorney suggested for OH that declared that each relative (parents/sisters still living at the time of my death) were to receive $1.00. If any family member were to try to contest my will, they would lose everything. The will included my rights to cremation and my ashes to be buried with my stillborn twin. (I'm from a very dis-functional family where my older sister actually threatened my life when she found out I was gay.) These are the types of things that many heterosexuals do not realize or refuse to accept as rights granted to us by the US Constitution and that should be declared unconstitutional when granted as "special rights" for heterosexual married couples.

@ErinNJ: What PaleBlueDot was saying is that the word "marriage" needs to be removed from such government contracts (licenses) and all 1400+ related laws and replaced with the word "civil union" which is what that license really is. You are right though that the proper term for the religious ceremony is not "marriage" but "Holy Matrimony." The main reason for changing the license terminology is to remove all contentions to the word "marriage."

Erin, I think you are technically correct, but most people think of what happens in a church as "marriage," which is why it matters so much that the term be extended to everyone. This is partly because we call the civil contract marriage as well -- there has never been a distinction between marriage performed by a civil authority like a judge or by clergy.

ErinNJ: To elaborate the reasoning behind my position, the vast majority of the opposition to gay marriage is from religious groups and the key argument against it is that it somehow violates the "sanctity" of marriage. Since this perspective on marriage is fundamentally religious, my position is that in accordance with the separation of Church and State the religiously charged word "marriage" should be removed from government dealings on the matter. I'll concede that marriage is already a civil contract, so my argument is largely semantic. Religious organizations are trying to make "marriage" synonymous with "holy matrimony" instead.

As far as the rights of churches, I'm aware that churches already have that right. I merely mentioned it to make sure it was out there. There's a lot of people that seem to be under the impression that legalizing gay marriage would force their churches to perform weddings, so I think it can't be reiterated often enough that nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

PBD, your argument makes sense except that everybody things of marriage as well, "marriage." I don't think that dropping the word would make an difference to the way certain churches react; it would make a difference to those who want to have the same treatment as anybody else.

I do NOT support homosexuality but hey, EVERYONE deserves EQUAL rights.

I am for WHO EVER wants to be married and equal rights.

What PaleBlueDot was saying is that the word "marriage" needs to be removed from such government contracts (licenses) and all 1400+ related laws and replaced with the word "civil union" which is what that license really is.

The problem with that is that it would be an administrative and logistical nightmare for the federal government to have to go back and change the wording of ALL of those laws and regulations.

In addition, it's still "marriage" that is the civil contract, and "matrimony" is the religious rite. The christo-bigots will have to deal with that.

I don't care if some of the same sex wants to get married..that's their choice.

But don't turn around in the future saying something else. Example: Two females got married they had a child ( not sure how they got it)..but they decided to get a divorce, now one keeps the child and the other refuses to pay child support saying its not her child...that don't work..you got married its both your child..same as a male/female marriage!

Forgot to say..the child came after they got married not before. Been in the news a few months ago.

Yes, and the non-custodial parent did not refuse to pay child support until AFTER the other mother stopped letting her see their child.

I have followed that case: Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins and their daughter, Isabella Jenkins-Miller.

PaleBlueDot - I personally think the most fair solution is to eliminate "Marriage" from the government lexicon altogether, even for heterosexual couples.

So when blacks wanted to ride at the front of the bus the proper solution would have been to end government-run bus service?

And since "marriage" is the only term which has federal, interstate and international recognition, why should we change everything just to coddle dumb bigots?

This provides the most freedom for the most people and maintains the separation of Church and State.

No, you've simply confused the secular legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of holy matrimony.

And just an FYI, many religions recognize same-sex marriage and perform religious weddings for gays. Our secular government simply doesn't care what your favorite cult does.......just ask a divorced & remarried Catholic if his cult controls his marital status.

Or perhaps we should all use only the Catholic definition of marriage, and no one should be allowed to divorce or remarry?

38%OfPedophilesAreGay is a reregistration of a banned troll whio has gone by various names, from JesusIsMyDog to JerrySanduskyIsAStereotypicalHomosexual

He always peddles the exact same moronic crap.

38%OfPedophilesAreGay

You are a Christian, aren't you?

And how does an Atheist feel the need to judge? What set of "rules and regulations" are you going off of? If no God, why the judgement? If we are a product of evolution, homosexuality then occurs naturally, right? If you were an Atheist...

Yes, there are non-Christians who think being gay is wrong, too. I wonder why that is? Any thoughts?

You're a LIAR.

We hetero's only get it right 50% of the time, so why should gay's be denied or have to obtain through the ballot, an institution that so many take for granted?

Where is marriage defined as a legal union between a man and a woman? You mean DOMA? Which has already been struck down by two different federal appeals courts in 2 different states? The US Supreme Court is going to strike it down at the national level. It's pure discrimination.

Now, please show us a legal reason (instead of rants) on why two consenting adults of the same sex cannot be married ;)

It seems the most stridently homophobic people are actually closeted gays that are confused and frightened by their own feelings...

No, the only pipe dream is.. heterosexuals who think they have the special right to discriminate against gays/lesbians. :) welcome to America in the 21st century. That special right of yours is just about gone.

38%, you said: "Even if they legalize homo unions, they cant make people respect the abomination."

Well, cool. Of course "they" can't, this is America, land of the free and the 1st Amendment. Gays will have legal marriage and you can call it an abomination. Win-win all around.

And on your other comment, yes, same-sex marriage exists in only a minority of states. No kidding. But unless you're exceptionally dishonest or blinded by zealotry, it's pretty clear what the direction is. Look at the legal situation twenty years ago, and then check out a map of the U.S. today. Chart a graph. Add it up. It isn't exactly subtle, the progression is pretty starkly obvious.

And again, you are free to continue to be upset about it.

Kirby,

I'd vote for "He's blinded by zealotry".

38%OfPedophilesAreGay is a reregistration of a banned troll whio has gone by various names, from JesusIsMyDog to JerrySanduskyIsAStereotypicalHomosexual

He always peddles the exact same moronic crap.

THANK YOU, Tyler!

HeyCurly Did you know that its the JOB of elected representatives to do such things as, oh i don't know... make legislation and vote on it and that legalizing gay marriage is just such a thing? What do you think we pay these guys for anyways?

ACTUALLY, this is a civil rights issue and we shouldn't be voting on it. Popularly or in our legislatures.

38%...

"Marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman."

And at one point it was legal in the country to own another human being.

Laws change.

"Every eligible man has the identical legal right to marry any eligible woman and vice versa."

Just like the one that used to say that blacks & white couldn't intermarry.

Even if they weren't of the same sex.

And I suspect that your claim that you're an atheist who voted for Obama is as big a pile of bull@!$%# as your screen name.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Because you do not vote on people's RIGHTS.

ACTUALLY, this is a civil rights issue and we shouldn't be voting on it. Popularly or in our legislatures.

Who voted the legislators into office again?

Who voted the legislators into office again?

Irrelevant. You must have missed where I said "popularly OR in our legislatures".

@Sarah,

It might help if you punctuated it better, I tried to make it out as best I could. No, it's not irrelevant. Elected officials are elected for the people, not to further their own careers. As soon as they distance themselves from the people they no longer deserve the office they hold. If the people do not want same sex marriage, then this legislation shouldn't pass. A survey is one thing, direct vote is another.

u need to get back to work 38! The fries r burning.

It is,

You'd be right if we weren't talking about CIVIL RIGHTS. If what you proposed was true in regards to civil rights, Mississippi would still be segregated. The popularly elected officials voting based on the majority of constitutes would still be trampling the rights of the minority. It would just be a less direct route.

In essence it's still the majority voting on rights, and for the 39580329859273757th time WE DON'T VOTE ON CIVIL RIGHTS.

Sarah, Did you change your position that marriage was a CONTRACT. Exactly how is a contract a civil right ?

Amen, Sarah!

Marriage is a legal contract, ergo it falls under the umbrella of equal protection. You're REALLY going to make me post this again???

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

Sarah, In the US Constitution is there is no 'black letter' on marriage that you call a civil right.

Yet in the 2d A. , there is 'black letter' about gun rights, but you supported a vote on that civil right.

Why do all rights not have equality with you ?

Yet in the 2d A. , there is 'black letter' about gun rights, but you supported a vote on that civil right.

No I supported regulations of a right. Just like marriage has regulations (age, informed consent), speech has regulations (slander), religion has regulations (can't "spare the rod and spoil the child"), press has regulations (libel), and protesting has regulations (permits, crowd size).

Can you really not differentiate between a "ban" and a "regulation"???

Civil Rights depend on the NATION you live in...every nation has its OWN civil rights. Some have very few, others have many.

If in fact CIVIL rights were REAL, then everyone on this planet would have the SAME RIGHTS. Since civil rights vary nation to nation then one can assume that these are not RIGHTS but in fact LAWS placed by voted in elected officials.

Any other conclusion is moronic.

Shoshyn,

Civil rights are also HUMAN rights. The rest of your post I'm not really understanding the purpose of, as we DO live in the USA and we still DON'T vote on civil rights. That's how the system is set up. The only way to change that is to amend the Constitution, which we HAVEN'T done in regards to this. That's part of the reason why we have a judicial branch.

its fascinating the effort they put into showing up here, after getting banned time after time. The amusing thing is that their posts just make them look creepy and stupid..but yet they seem to crave that. lol.

I wonder how much his psychiatrist pays HIM to peer into that creepy mind. :)

Its amusing to compare the pro-gay marriage posts (that address topics like equal rights) with the homophobic bigots..who seem obsessed with animal sex, genitalia, pedophilia, etc. lol.

A recent study has shown that males who express extreme disgust at homosexuality and anger or hatred of homosexuals, are in fact latent homosexuals.

yeah, same old patriotic americans fighting for equal rights against the creepy haters who are obsessed with juvenile sex dolls. you're right again! :)

i wonder how long before you get banned again? :)

38%OfPedophilesAreGay

This site is clearly not what you are interested in, why don't you simply leave? No one takes you seriously anyway.

Yeah, well, that lets you out, 38%. No truth in your posts. Just ignorance.

And Sarah is here for the masses, again! She's focused on being the voice of equal rights, whether there is any equality to be had or not. Forget about anything that has to do with God, or Christianity, or general morality. Sarah wants everyone to be happy and full of "joy" regardless of the consequences to the general direction of America. Immoral or not.

Of course she doesn't work regul;ar hours, nor does she pay many taxes. That doesn't matter. By goodness, Sarah's on the side of all personal freedoms, as long as someone is willing to read her sophistry....

Marty, Sarah is absolutely right on this issue. Invoking the name of God doesn't make something right. Just ask the witches they burned, the heretics they tortured, the slaves they kept....want me to go on?

I think Marty just wants some attention and is too scared to talk about the topic. But you are right. I couldn't care less about your "god" and "Christianity".

Marty, it is interesting that you are so dishonest with yourself that you have to make up things about people who disagree with you, that, you know that you have no clue about, just to make yourself feel better about your own opinions.

Marty S.

Marriage equality and religion are not mutually exclusive, there are many many religious people who believe in marriage equality. Maybe you don't but really what business of yours is it to deny people the right to be happy and equal?

Interesting if your right to practice your religion was in danger i would be at the front of the line defending your rights, however you don't seem to be able to offer the same back. Sad.

And here's what springs to mind when reading Marty S's impotent attack on Sarah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&feature=share&list=LLHrVqSw6PMoIswoQ7lHO_fQ

Marty S. - Marty S.Forget about anything that has to do with God, or Christianity, or general morality.

The moment you invoked your cult and your imaginary friend in a discussion about legal rights, you lost the argument.

lol, don't bother with him. he just cuts and pastes the same stupidity every single thread. After all, if he read it on the internet..it must be true! lol.

vermontguy,

maybe he's the "french model" !!! bonjour ! ROFL

that would explain why he is on these threads posting about homosexuals.. looking and acting like he does must provide a VERY lonely life and lots of time on his hands...

and yet, i don't feel bad for him :)

So 38 ( his/her IQ) has no problem w/ his uncle who makes up the 62% straight pedo's.

Don't feed the troll.

jock59801, you're right, and I'm annoyed with myself that I replied to him before.

I don't throw around the term "troll" much, because too often it's used against someone who just has a different opinion. But this guy fits the description for sure; he's just here to disrupt and dominate the conversation, so denying him (and his ilk) food is the only way to make sure he can't.

You don't really get this freedom thing, do you.

38 & Lonesome r 3rd grade drop outs. PITY them!

I'm glad the the great state of Oregon will have it's BAN overturned when the US Supreme Court VOIDS It. Then you can move to a country where same sex marriage is very much outlawed. Try Iran.

Yes Donald, i hear those middle-eastern countries have lovely religious based laws that fit your viewpoints perfectly and you would greatly enjoy them :)

i'll even help chip in towards the cost of your one-way ticket :)

LOL.. and what study is this? Please post the source for us all to see.

You are very obsessed with sex and minors... hmmmm

It's not about respect. It's about giving people the same equal rights as heterosexuals have. It will happen and when it does, there is not one thing you can do about it. You don't have to like it, respect it, get involved with it, you can even hate it, refuse to accept it, but I'd get used to it if I was you. We the PEOPLE applies to EVERYONE

ItsAboutTime-3704531,

We the People applies to EVERYONE, you mean even pedophiles too? Their people. Oh wait, your prejudice will soon kick in LMAO!!

Donald... I've explained this to you multiple times....

US Supreme Court Ruling - Lawrence Vs. Texas - 2003. What two consenting adults of the same sex due is NOT ILLEGAL . What an adult of any sex does to a child of a sexual NATURE IS A CRIME. There is a HUGE difference. ITS CALLED CONSENT. Our society has decided that someone under the age of 18 cannot GIVE LEGAL consent. Although, in some backward southern states... you can be married to your first cousin (underage). Just not your GAY cousin.

The only prejudice here is your ignorance for not being able to see the difference.

P.S. Laugh at one self is usually a sign of a delusional mind :)

38%OfPedophilesAreGay

LOL if the best thing you can do, is point out a 'grammar' error.... don't. :).

The rest completely ignored. Hilarious, but ignored.

Yawn....

ItsAboutTime-3704531,

Are you saying that Pedophiles are not people? How rude sure their people too. I mean this whole gay movement is about sexual equality, right? Oh wait, your prejudice will soon kick in.

So we the PEOPLE doesn't applies to EVERYONE.

Donald,

*yawn* you are so boring.. please get some new talking points..

its been pointed out to you before (multiple times) that pedophilia is a paraphilia and not a sexual orientation like homosexuality. so your "analogy" of pedophiles getting equal rights as well doesn't hold any water since its not comparable to homosexuals, educate yourself for a change - you look even more foolish the more you post this drivel.

if you wish to remain willfully ignorant of that fact, that is your choice, but doesn't give you any talking points to speak of since your points are null and void.

oh wait, i forget, you get your information from Yahoo Answers and try to pawn it off as a credible source LOL oh that cracks me up ! :) only someone with your 5th grade education could actually believe its a credible source :)

38%,

your "logic" was applied to interracial marriage as well - look how well that turned out huh ? i bet you still think there should be separate drinking fountains huh ?

do yourself a favor and get some new talking points as well :)

its a shame 38%, you are obviously unwanted on the thread (thusly the banning and you having to re-register multiple times just to get banned again, plus the fact that the majority of the posters on here have an opposing viewpoint to you) and obviously unwanted in other areas of life or you wouldn't be able to spend so much time on these threads, i suggest you deal with that and not worry about homosexuals getting the right to marry.

and now, back to work, you two have bored me so much i'm going to go get my work done !

and please.. don't bother responding :)

itsabouttime - great posts as usual and as usual you put them in their place :)

Phoenyx13,

So you have a prejudice towards pedophiles? Although you don't know them you judge them for their sexual behavior but don't want someone else judging you becase ofyour sexual behavior. How hypocritical LMAO!!

As i stated earlier all this LGBT foolishness is pointless in retrospect. No matter how many laws are passed to make homosexuals feel "normal" they will never be accepted within societies social-constructs. As Yahooanswers.com(the largest of it's kind) stated most gays don't even want to hang out with other gays because they act too gay LMFAO

You obviously can't answer my question.