Yuku free message boards

Homosexuality is not against the natural order of things. In fact, dogs, cats, and many other animals are known to have homosexual behaviors. Dolphins, the ONLY other mammal known to have sex for pleasure, have their homosexual uncles as well. So it is not, by ANY measure of the word, against the natural order of things.

Elijah, unless you've actually gone out and read a number of dictionaries, and gone to each and looked up the word in them, I'm calling you on it. Vis a vis:

Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition (page 881)

marriage n. 1 the state of being married; relation between spouses; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2 the act of marrying; wedding 3 the rite or form used in marrying 4 any close or intimate union 5 the king and queen of a suit, esp. as a meld in pinochle

marry vt. 1 a) to join as spouses; wunite in wedlock b) to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife 2 to take a spouse; to take in marriage 3 to joine closely or intimately; unite

dictionary.reference.com

marry
v.tr.
1.
a. To join as spouses by exchanging vows.
b. To take as a spouse.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical. To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: His material marries the domestic and the exotic (Clifton Fadiman).

v.intr.
1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties.
2. To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.

marriage
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle


Now, I'm not going to pretend that I've read every dictionary on the planet. Nor should you. The fact remains that the word marriage, while applicable to a man and a woman coming together in love, is not the only definition of it. In fact, currently, in the United States, it is the LEGAL definition of it, and it is that which people are tying to change.

I am absolutely sickened by people who want to deprive rights to other people based on religious notions or based on the fact that they should be happy just being together. What kind of society are we living in here?

I'm sorry, but two men and/or two women are indeed capable of giving a child a very loving and nuturing environment to grow up in. The idea that you must have a man and a woman as parents to be loved or nutured is idiotic at best. Why, then, do people use it as an arguement so much? Oh, because, you know, that's how nature intended it -- and besides, how could someone force their child to live in a world of ridicule, right? Pay attention folks... the ONLY reason there's a stigma on the notion is because of SOCIETY. It is not because of any proven factual material, it is simply the NOTION that it is a problem.

Considering the number of single parents in the world, you can hardly tell me that someone having two parents of the same sex would be a worse situation than the one that exists already.

Why in the world would gay people want to be married? Because of many of the reasons that straight people want to. Social security benefits (not that they're likely to be around much longer the way the government is going, but I digress); legal rights such as power of attorney (right now, your partner as a gay couple has less rights than your family... but as a straight couple, your wife or husband comes first, your family next); inheritance rights (a gay will can and often is contested by family members based solely on sexuality); citizenship rights (a straight couple can marry to grant citizenship to their loved one; a gay couple cannot). The list goes out from there, but those are the primary ones.

Why then not have the same rights, but call them something else? As I was talking to a friend of mine earlier, she had the best point as to why. Historically, this country SUCKS with regard to "seperate but equal rights." Seriously, why does it matter what it's called to anyone? It is the union of two loving people. Marriage is more of a civil function than it is a religious function in this country, and quite frankly, defending the "sanctity" of marriage is something that a great many straight people in this country have already screwed up from a religious standpoint. Can we do a quick poll on the divorce rate around the United States?

Finally, let me ask you straight folk a question: Do you not look as marriage as a way to commit yourself to the person you are in love with, look at it as a way to affirm your love, to be able to look out for each other, and say to the world "This is the person I'm in love with?" Right... but I guess that kind of love is only possible between a man and a woman, right?

I agree about some of the other stuff that's touched on, like the gays and the St Patty's Day parade... they should butt out. Gay Pride Parades... I don't understand them, only almost been to one, but I'll tell you this much... in Chicago, they're held near the gay supportive section of town, and you know what? They don't harm anything. Why do people NEED to put on a gay pride parade? Well, I'll tell you, I've wrestled with this myself, because I think that being proud of sexuality is a silly notion. But then, I could give a rat's ass about whether or not people like that I'm gay or not. I am. And it doesn't matter to me if you dislike me for it. Why? Because if the first think you see when you see me is, "Hey, that man's gay," you're not seeing any of the other parts of me. I certainly don't judge anyone by, "Dude, that couple's straight." I actually, you know, get to know other people first.

Why then do some people find it necessary? Because they DO care what other people think. They tire of being told that they're going to hell because they're different -- no one is damned to hell for being gay. I'll pretend for a moment that I embrace religion widely (I don't... I have my own views on God), and I'll tell you this: I went to a church service at a local church once, and they were answering "The Tough Questions." Someone had the courage to ask about homosexuality, and asked, "If homosexuality is a sin, and I'm homosexual, why is it that I'm damned to hell? Why does God not love me?" The answer: "Let me start by saying, 'God loves homosexuals.' God loves each and every one of us." Which is to say that by Jesus' teachings, even those who lead a life of sin WILL BE FORGIVEN by taking Jesus into their heart. So I don't want to hear the bull of "well, condoning it would be bad," or the other religious arguements that I've heard. Quite frankly, they're a bunch of bull. What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged yourselves."

And finally, San Francisco...

Sure, they're breaking the law trying to get a law that discriminates against a group of people off the books. It's about time someone took a stand. I suppose Rosa Parks should have simply taken her seat at the back of the bus, right?

Aren't we above judging people, and putting them into the places YOU want them to be in? Aren't we as a society progressive? The end of the world isn't nigh. The internet didn't come crashing down on January 1, 2000, nor did society as a whole. And while there are a great many devout religious worshippers in the land, there is a separation of church and state in this country. Or at least there's supposed to be. And if that is to exist, and love REALLY IS love, segregation of gays and straights by the word marriage needs to end.

About San Francisco... could it be that the reason no one has arrested said mayor is that, aside from Governor Terminator and his big mouth, that perhaps those who are in a position to do something about it have chosen NOT to do something about it because they "get it." They understand what is going on?

Progress happens. Sometimes in spite of those who would stand in its way.


On the American society breaking down... mmm... perhaps. Only time will tell. Homosexuality is not a "survival issue." There's quite a bit of difference between the sexuality of the American culture (be it straight or gay) and that of the Roman Empire. Now... I agree, there are many OTHER ways that our society is lined up almost perfectly with the degredation of the Roman Empire, and yes, I too think those signs are a cause for concern. But then, who knows what will happen this time around. The Earth is just slightly more populated than the last time -- who knows what will come of such a collapse. Time will only tell. However, there are things in our country that the Roman Empire lacked at its fall, so perhaps through perserverance, the United States will survive. Twenty years? I think we're looking at more like 100 years, but again... who really knows?