By the perpetuate the species definition, a marriage without children should not be called a marriage either, nor a marriage where one partner is sterile. "Separate but equal" anyone? Doesn't work.<br><br>Ask yourself how heterosexual marriages are harmed by their gay friends being married. They're not harmed at all. Anymore than the white couple is harmed by the interracial couple being married.<br><br>In any case this IS about legal marriage, not spiritual or religious marriage. Every major faith has branches that will marry gay couples, and have long done so with or without the law. How does this removal of a certain right belong in the state constitution? It's a terrible misuse of the constitution and a huge invasion of the government in peoples' homes.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

What "values" to gay families have that are different? Sounds like you want to make sure kids are taught hate early enough that they can choose to hate potential adoptive parents. Or something? I don't get it.<br><br>If you think being gay is a "values" issue then there's a basic misunderstanding, and a kind of homophobia that ends up hurting real people.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

This groups seems like the biggest one worth donating to... but it's hard to tell just from some Googling. Any opinions? Is this group a good choice to support if I want to see proposition 8 fall?<br><br>http://www.noonprop8.com/<br><br>I didn't know about the FL issue. How's it doing in the polls?<br><br>The real shame is the ones that got on the ballot in various states in the time after 9/11, when hate and fear were suddenly cool again.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>By the perpetuate the species definition, a marriage without children should not be called a marriage either...<p><hr></blockquote><p>I can't agree with that - first of all it's a retrospective disqualification but more importantly relationships to perpetuate the species are legitimised by millions of years of human evolution... it's rather irrelevant that within marriage a person may choose not to, or by some freak of nature be unable to, fulfill the purpose.<br><br>km<br><br>

<br>[color:blue]If you think being gay is a "values" issue then there's a basic misunderstanding, and a kind of homophobia that ends up hurting real people.</font color=blue><br><br>More and more, social scientists are recognizing that there has been a gradual but absolutely pervasive feminization of school and social habitat. Boys are raised by mothers and female teachers, rowdy behaviour is replaced with conflict solving stuff, and increasingly -a fter decades of helping girls "be all they can be", it appears to be necessary, to do the same for boys.<br><br>Now, what's that got to do with the above topic?<br>Well, quite frankly, when I meet lesbian women, who have one of the two partners "impregnated" by some unknown drone, I have a really bad reaction to this. I get the feeling that these women want to have their cake and eat it too, with complete disregard for the child in question.<br>They don't want to be women in the classical sense, which is okay, but as the biological clock is ticking, they suddenly discover their earth mother component..... and to fullfill this desire ... well, I find that just another example of that feminization, which isn't healthy for society as a whole.<br><br>Not sure what to do or even say about that.... I just don't believe that pregancy (which women have already reduced to the state of a personal physical condition where men, including the father, have no say) and child rasing, should be as freely experimented with.<br><br>Not sure if you get where I am coming from.<br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

The values I mean as what a male and female bring to parenting - young I mean 0 to say 4 years old<br><br>

This is great...<br><br>I don't think they should call it gay marriage... that inflames many even mildly religious folks. Call it Gay Union.<br><br>I heard a story months ago that made great sense. There should be 2 levels of unions at a typical marriage... <br>1. the LEGAL level... and that involves the court and getting the license.<br>IT sets up the partnership and all the legal ramifications.<br><br>2. The RELIGIOUS level .. the Church and the recognition of the union as a "holy act" and blessed by whatever God you believe in = Marriage.<br><br>All the traditional marriages have both ... those gay couples should be given #1 and all the legal protection that goes with it, just leave off #2. <br>I have a gay woman working for me and she and her partner just celebrated their 16th anniversary. Yea, for them !! .. they should be congratulated ! just as any traditional couple... NO different.<br><br>WHAT is wrong with the above? Won't satisfy the religious folks, but too bad... there are many marriages (~50%) ending in divorce and broken homes so marriage isn't perfect either !! gimme a break- their solution isn't a Gold STANDARD by any means !<br><br>David (OFI)

Kids with a single parent only get one gender's viewpoint too. At least with a gay couple they get the variety of having TWO viewpoints, albeit from one gender.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

But gay couples already have #2.<br><br>The issue here is whether the law should stick gay couples into a special sub-category for #1. Separate but equal--and removing the term marriage when a marriage IS exactly what these people have. It's all pretty medieval.<br><br>(And just as with whites-only restaurants and bathrooms, separate-but-equal does NOT mean equal at all. By its very nature it places blacks, or in this case gays, in a lesser category. If who you love isn't the government's business, then the government doesn't need a special name like Civil Union to split you off into another category. Far-right religious segments are free to discriminate against any group they wish, but keep it out of the law and out of the constitution. Please!)<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

The term "marriage" and the way they've been chosen and carried out has not been static for all those years--it has evolved hugely. And so it should, as society itself evolves.<br><br>I really get the sense that people are grasping for SOME reason to oppose gay marriage, when their real motivation is emotional, and rooted in dislike of those who are different (a very common and very human reaction that does NOT make them bad people--I just wish they would recognize it more).<br><br>For instance, if someone said to themselves "I'm really happy for my gay couples getting married! Only... now that I think about it, maybe there are historical reasons why I should rethink that" then that's one thing. But I think it works the other way: "I feel weird about gay marriage. Let's see what reasons I might be able to craft--or repeat from other people--to support that emotion." They work BACKWARDS to find reasons for what they already felt.<br><br>That's human--not evil--but it does real harm to real people. (And not just to loving couples--it harms kids too, when they see their parents treated as a second and lesser class of people.)<br><br>And certainly doesn't belong in a constitution.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net