<p>Of course you dislike gays. Because if for you–and other Republicans–this were about the “sanctity of marriage,” you would first clean your own house, which is far more harmful to children than a couple of gay people deciding to tie the knot. </p>
<p>Specifically, why are you not agitating against divorce? Hetero divorces are a huge cause of suffering for kids. I say clean your own house, because I’d like you to take a look at the number of Republican lawmakers who are on their second marriages. Good ol’ Newt, of course, whose daughter says he ignored her after he dumped her mother for a newer, sleeker model. Why aren’t you furious about that? (Ans: dislikes gays.) </p>
<p>One other poster here, who insisted he/she did not hate gays, used the argument that homosexuals should “learn” to love someone of the opposite sex and ignore their feelings for another gay person. Hey, why not force Newt and all those other guys to “ignore” feelings for new girlfriends and “learn” to love the mother of his children?</p>
<p>I like straights in the way that I want them to all be treated equally before the law. I am for bestiality as long it is between consenting adults.</p>
<p>Golani, you just don’t get it. Legally, marriage is a civil union. None of the things you list as attributes of marriage: “mongomy, having children, raising a family etc.” are inherent attributes of “marriage” as opposed to “civil unions.” As to “So what can happen is that two people who like to have sex, sign a paper for some monetary and other kind of rights and then they carry on and do whatever they want” – there’s nothing about “marriage” which prevents that, and in fact, it fairly describes a depressing number of marriages.</p>
<p>As to the foolish assertion that “Also there is the problem if you allow gays to marry why not allow polygamy, bigamy, beastiality, insectous relationships and even marriages, etc” the answer is simple: because the first three don’t involve two competent, consenting, agreeing adults - a pretty clear distinction, don’t you think? As to incest between adults - well, that’s more of a heterosexual issue than anythinng else. And marriage - well, like I said, marriage is just a different word for “civil union” with religious ovrtones.</p>
<p>And honestly historically marriage was mostly about negotiating property transfer. Most marriages in Europe were common law marriages until the Council of Trent (basically to fight the Protestant Reformation.)</p>
<p>saudi, I recommend that you check out “Screw Loose Change” - a video critique of “Loose Change.” It’s a little shrill at times, but contains some very valid factual debunking of the “Loose Change” clams.</p>
<p>I respect Kluge for telling that scum that he is wrong, but I suspect there are alot of people that posts regulary on these boards that feel 9.11 was an inside job. Im sure you do too fountainsiren</p>
<p>saudi: <strong>Isn’t it rather IRRESPONSIBLE to post TWO links to that video on a cite (College Confidential) which impressionable students may visit?</strong></p>
<p>RE: saudi: <strong>Isn’t it rather IRRESPONSIBLE to post TWO links to that video on a cite (College Confidential) which impressionable students may visit?</strong></p>
<p>The last time I looked, college students were adults…some of them even senior citizens (those that were returning to finish up their degrees).</p>
<p>RE: saudi, I recommend that you check out “Screw Loose Change” - a video critique of “Loose Change.” It’s a little shrill at times, but contains some very valid factual debunking of the “Loose Change” clams.</p>
<p>Could you give me the web address? I looked at ‘a site’; however, what I found was (more a of a) debunking of word choices, grammatical inconsistencies, and the dismissal of (otherwise) pecayune details.</p>
<p>im sure there are there are posters here besides the idiot saudi who believe that 911 was an inside job, theyre usually the ones that think bush and clinton and the american govt in general is always wrapped up in some dishonest business</p>