Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

One of the reasons I like discussion forums is so I can try out my ideas with other people. And in this case, I have to confess that my original presentation seem unworkable even to me. My thanks to TemplarS for his insightful comments... they forced me to re-think through my ideas.

Good for you. Thinking is always good.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

I am still very angry about the State redefining marriage to allow same sex couples to marry each other.

Frankly, tough. Get over it.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

 The vast majority of people in this Country are not same sex couples... who actually amount to a tiny minority of the total population

And the Constitution is there precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Blacks are also a minority. As are Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and other non-Christians.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

The very idea that the Government would side with them against a vast majority of Heterosexual Christian couples

Your 'Christian' supremacist views have long ago worn out their welcome.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

against thousands of years of tradition, spend hundreds and thousands of hours in legislative debate from State to State, and Millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars, just to satisfy these people... boggles my mind.

I hate (love) to point out the obvious, but you are STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED now that gay couples can too. DO get over yourself.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

All these malcontents would have to do is recognize that they can never be a husband and wife, if they are two men or two women

But we CAN be legal spouses, much to your obvious chagrin. Again, get over it.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

 and then settle for Civil Unions

You haven't made a case as to why SOME citizens should have to "setttle" for less than Constitutionally guaranteed equality.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

But no, they have to get married.

Do heterosexuals "have to get married"? Preposterous.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

The whole thing has me mad enough to spit.

Gee, really? Whodathunkit? Seems to me like you're also mad enoughto bear false witness. And to twist history.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

It is not right to turn our society on its head, which is what redefining marriage will do

You're welcome to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own 'facts'. That has not happened, and we've been marrying legally for close to a decade now.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

the fetters you consent to unleashing this day, will have ripple effects that will devastate lives for generations to come.

Again, hyperbole much?

Feb 1, 2012 -- 7:50PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Feb 1, 2012 -- 2:39PM, dblad wrote:

Homosexuals cannot form families, therefore they ought not to be granted these privileges.

I beg to differ, Homosexuals can and do form families. I don't know where you get the ridiculous notion thay cannot.

From Wiki ... Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Although heterosexism is defined in the online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as anti-gay discrimination and/or prejudice "by heterosexual people" and "by heterosexuals", people of any sexual orientation can hold such attitudes and bias. Nonetheless, heterosexism as discrimination ranks gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities as second-class citizens with regard to various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality in the majority of the world’s jurisdictions and societies.

I get the silly notion from observing that homosexual couplings are sterile.

Seraphim, you changed your statement from "Homosexuals [i.e. the people] cannot form families" to "homosexual couplings [i.e. a physical act] are sterile". They are not the same thing. The "effects that flow from marriage" flow to people, not sex acts.

Besides, procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Anyone's. And, we let sterile heterosexuals marry all the time.

Let me know when you can come up with a cogent, consistent argument that isn't an insult.

Feb 4, 2012 -- 1:11PM, mainecaptain wrote:

As has been stated several times. Marriage is not a Christian controlled business. And yes it is a business. Marriage is a business contract. And that is all it ever was.

It has only become something special in the last 100-150 years, when emotion, become part of the deal.  Up until then women were pretty much bought and sold by fathers and potential husbands. Women had no say in who they married at all. If Christians consider that sacred,

well.......

Well said, Cap'n. I remember hearing those now-antiquated words, "Who giveth this bride away?" - as if brides were property.

Who signed Adam and Eve's wedding licence?  Who were the witnesses required?