And in The (supposed) Good Old Days, the "Privilege" of getting "Married" was specifically withheld for "Inter-Racial" Couples ...

It's NOT The Bronze Age anymore ... and it's not even 1950 anymore, either ...

But, yes ... For GOOD Reasons -- Medical, Psycho-Social, especially -- "Incest" is -- and will continue to be -- proscribed ... as will "Bestiality" ... (I mean, REALLY ... ??? Are these REALLY the BEST Arguments the "Anti-" Bunch can set forth ... ???)

Jun 2, 2012 -- 12:57PM, aarroottoonn wrote:

Jun 1, 2012 -- 10:23PM, teilhard wrote:

***Well ... huh ...

If "Marriage" is a "Priviledge," then no one has a "Right" to define it for someone ELSE, eh ... ???

"Take it from me, babe ... You can't have it both ways ..."

 -- "Jane," to "Jonas," in "Leap of Faith" ...

Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. ***One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.

Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.

Of course we do. We define your marriage priviledge to not include your first cousin, animals, the dead, one under 16 (without consent), or multiple spouces. Should they all be legal? Should we have any laws, for I have the priviledge of driving, but not if I was under 16, drunk, or handicapped in a way that I could not properly drive the vehicle.  The point being, we confine rights with restrictions all the time, from the first amendment to marriage.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, fodaoson wrote:

there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always closeted some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   

Fod you seem to be implying that male/female marriage is some sort of custom or tradition that has outlived its time.  Further that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.

It nonsensical.

There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.  It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.

***So you're suggesting that a HeteroSexual Couple that has no Biological Descendants ought not be considered a legitimate Marriage, either ... ???

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

Jun 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, fodaoson wrote:

there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always closeted some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   

Fod you seem to be implying that male/female marriage is some sort of custom or tradition that has outlived its time.  Further that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.

It nonsensical.

***There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.  It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.

Quote:

"The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could."

So why fight to join something that's so corrupted?

Maybe THAT's the "Rub" ... ??? Some Hetro-Sexual Couples like Newt and Callista worry that GLBT Couples will be more successful and faithful ... ???

Jun 3, 2012 -- 12:12AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

Quote:

 

"The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could."

So why fight to join something that's so corrupted?