<p>
</p>
<p>It does not matter to me, and I’m not sure why the number of gay marriages would or should matter to anyone. I just don’t see any competition there.</p>
<p>FS - Very well said. There was an earlier thread about homosexuality in which I offered some of the same observations as you. Most prominent of which was that the very word homosexual implies sex at its core – not love. I have said and say again that I have no problem with actual LOVE between any two people, reagrdless of gender. What I do have a problem with is when two people of the same sex have a PHYSICAL/SEXUAL attraction to each other and use the guise of “love” to legitimize it.</p>
<p>Why should that bother you, Leanid? People of the opposite sex “have a PHYSICAL/SEXUAL attraction to each other and use the guise of “love” to legitimize it” all the time. What’s the diff (as they say)?</p>
<p>nceph - Then you would be okay with 25% gay marriages, how about 50%, do I hear 100%?! This is too ridiculous! If you have no problem with the numbers (or the potential numbers) then we have nothing to discuss.</p>
<p>Am - Point taken. I should have included both homo and hetero.</p>
<p>kity - I am still waiting for a reply to my simple question of which set of parents would you choose</p>
<p>o be fair, your man is still popular among straight Presbyterians in northwestern Wyoming.
but the GOP may be in trouble in Ohio</p>
<p>[Oh NOES!](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/us/politics/18poll.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/us/politics/18poll.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th</a>)</p>
<p>First of all I don’t understand the question of how many gay marriages is enough. As many as are wanted?</p>
<p>Secondly, I do agree that there are more likely to be unrestrained men in male-male relationships, but only because (in my opinion) men without the restraining influence of women sometimes stray farther. I think that’s separate from the marriage issue. I know and love lots and lots of gay men and I don’t think they would even consider marriage for themselves (if it were legal) if they didn’t want that more traditional lifestyle. Many of them simply won’t consider settling down, but I think those who want should be able marry. Their orientation is not a choice, but their actual lifestyle is and I don’t see many gay men who want a more wild lifestyle settling down in marriage anyway. Personally, it’s not my business if a grown person has multiple partners (although I would hope he would be safe), but I find a man who is living a promiscuous lifestyle in an honest manner more acceptable (poor choice of word there) than a man living “on the down low” in a heterosexual marriage. But that’s just me. Flame away.</p>
<p>kity - That is cute – ignore it and it will go away! It is a simple question really. Are you afraid to answer?</p>
<p>zooser - Are you saying you do not understand the implications for civilization if gay marriage somehow multiplied to the point that it was in the majority?</p>
<p>I havent responded because I don’t think kids have a choice to who they are born to
I think children would prefer a couple who were committed to each other & to the family and I think that when society recognizes their partnership, the union has a better chance of succeeding.</p>
<p>I was “raised” by two heterosexual adults- however they both were mentally ill- my father died when I was 17 and my mother exacerbated that situation by not calling for emergency aid when he began having seizures from an apparent overdose of medication.</p>
<p>If I could have had, two parents who were homosexual but were healthy enough to raise a child, I would have prefered that.
But it wasn’t my choice- for most kids- who they are stuck with, is who they get.</p>
<p>( ya know the thing is- when homosexual parents raise children- they do it delibrately- because they want to- they obviously had to adopt or use artificial inseminiation etc.
So just by making that DELIBERATE choice, they have already determined that they want to become parents. Very different from the many heterosexual couples* or single parents* who are raising a child because the woman got pregnant and they thought they might as well-
Homosexual couples dont make the descision by default- and so in my mind- that makes them better parents 
)</p>
<p>FS: Good post. I’d vote for some type of domestic partnership license allowing gays inheritance rights, pension benefits, next of kin rights at hospitals, etc. for their life-partner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, zoosermaom. Some choose loyal relationships, some choose promiscuity, and some choose celibacy. Some live “on the down low.” All choices that nobody forced them to make. Some posters here are misreading statements on this thread, demanding to know why gays should have no choices, or be “forced” into celibacy. I’ve yet to see anyone suggest that.</p>
<p>“zooser - Are you saying you do not understand the implications for civilization if gay marriage somehow multiplied to the point that it was in the majority”</p>
<p>I’m saying that I don’t believe that would ever happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand why you are assuming and fearing a significant proliferation in gay marriages. At the very most, gay marriages might increase to match the number of gay relationships, but I hardly think it would be causing heterosexuals to abandon their marriages.</p>
<p>If heterosexuals were to start abandoning their marriages in droves, maybe it would be because their marriages were lies to begin with.</p>
<p>Fancy the thought…</p>
<p>Glad the Sec. of State (and Prez) have taken such a courageous stance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…such a subtle mind you have mini: not even nuanced can quite capture the brute butt of it.</p>
<p>Too bad you werent around when your enthusiastic forbearers were still letting-fly the “democratic steel” of the guillotine, snapping the necks of those not keeping up with the program of liberte’ ah, but those were the days, my friend–to bad they had to end .you could have laugher forever and today youd live the life you chose, shadow-box and never loose oh, those guillotine days, oh, those guillotine days!</p>
<p>You missed your time, mini.</p>
<p>Hmm, Alot of action on this one while I was away.</p>
<p>I always find in these cases the greater the outrage the greater the secret yearning. Not just Foley by the way. Sometimes people become so focused on a subject that like a moth to a flame…</p>
<p>Anyway, most of the anti gay posters here only really use the extreme version of the gay lifestyle… the bathroom sex, promiscuity and what not. I mean c’mon like heteros don’t screw in the bathroom, fool around and do all sorts of stuff too? 
please. Just cause your sex life is boring, don’t assume all heteros do what you do. </p>
<p>Just like heteros… gays exhibit all the same personalities and tendencies of straight people. It is really foolish because you disagree with the lifestyle to sterotype it, as what is the norm? YOU? really? interesting?</p>
<p>I think for alot of conservatives the real fear is getting gay marriage thrust upon them and their chruch without fear of saying no without legal actions. Voters came out in droves across the country as pastors, ministers and preists saw this gay marriage as an assualt on their churches and who is allowed to marry there. No body wants any group they may not care for thrust in their faces by government actions, even if in the long run it would be good for them quite possibly, in gaining a bit of understanding. While I support gay marriage I also think if a certain chruch is uncomfortable in performing the cerimony they should not be sued for saying no. If you believe one group should not have a “norm” forced upon them, it should apply across the board. If a certain religous group is uncomfortable, let em be. Froce creates resisitance and the issue is lost to a battle of wills. </p>
<p>It’s sort of like many of the conservative posters here who are against the gay lifestyle but profess to knowing a lesbian or gay man who they get along with as if they were the exception to the rule. They’d probably find a majority of these people are alot like themselves with similar worries and joys in life. </p>
<p>With all the other issues facing this country, we fret over what somebody does in their bedroom. If your own life in your bedroom was interesting enough, you wouldn’t care. </p>
<p>as to the homeschool comment I made eariler, I know a parent can opt a child out, but how does that spare my family? That was my point about home school, often it is great for the families who don’t do it. Not every homeschooled kid is a genuis, they have the same graduation problems of the general population.</p>
<p>leanid:
Are you saying that the only thing preventing men from having sex and marrying other men is the fear of incarceration with other men?</p>
<p>kity - I am well aware that we have no choice in who our parents are. I am asking you a hypothetical question. You, yourself, said you would rather have a gay couple as parents, provided they were “healthy enough to raise a child”, than your own (I am sorry to hear yours were less than adequate), so, you are offering a hypothetical answer. Now what about an answer to my original question, which is, again, hypothetical.</p>
<p>gla - Huh?!</p>
<p>
Opie: </p>
<p>it seems you enjoy what can only be termed a fascinating sex life; if not in fact, at least in your imagination. I do not, however, think it helps the cause of gay marriage for you to advertise it so…not even when decorated with all those little cutsie “but don’t hit me back because I’m cute” smiley faces.</p>
<p>Not sure, but I’m guessing that not a lot of women are pulling over at highway rest-stops to have anonymous hetro-sex with the horny and lonely guys that, you imagine, await them; I mean, just in case you, or other hetro-men are hanging-out waiting for hot-babes to show up in those disgusting stalls: Really, it’s a waste of time. Take my word for it. </p>
<p>Just a hunch; but, I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you. Try a dating sevice.</p>