Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Fundalmentaly then you're unfit to continue this discussion. Arrr...Indeed.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I don't know about that. That's like saying that just because you're not black, it means you can't argue for black rights. It would mean that the idea of politicians would be ludicrous, because they cannot possibly represent everyone in their area.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not necessarily. You can still have a thourough knowledge of homosexuals through personal relationships (friends, family members, etc.) without actually being gay. If you’re gay, that makes you all the better for a debate that involves homosexuality, but it’s not a prerequisite.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yet he's already missrepresented them...He doesn't know why they're doing this movement...He's bounced from one to another.......He's unfitto argue not knowing their motivation.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

well, that's a question of competency, not sexuality or personality.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

That is where I come into this thread. I am gay, no questions asked. Don't care what anyone thinks, however, I am on both sides of this argument (the reasonable ones at least).

Gay things I am for:

More rights
No more unfair treatment (hmm, sound's like a lil thing we had called 'racism' huh?).
Civil Unions.


Gay things I am NOT for:

Constant religious BS about homosexuality. (there's more to the Bible then "Men lying down with men" & "Men kept for unnatural purposes"!)

My arguments:

Yes, gays deserve more rights who could argue with that? Simply humans like the rest of us. If there's two people one was gay, the other straight, who both tried to get the same job, yet the gay is more qualified, shouldn't the gay have a better chance getting the job?

Racism is a terrible thing, now we can't exactly get rid of the KKK now can we? But if we catch them doing horrid things we can get them for murder.
What's the difference between allowing a cult (so to speak) to thrive, and yet gays (a simple group) to be put down?

Religion is religion, it has NO place in politics in this day and age. Specifically in the U.S. If someone wants to keep two men from getting married, so be it. There will probably be someone, somewhere who is willing to do so.

Now, on a less serious note, feel free to twist my words around and shove them down my throat (for those of you who do that is) because I know you will. :nodding:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What rights besides Marriage(a religous sacament, as it has been since the beginning of human civilization)do you lack, exactly? And as I already said, I'm for Civili Unions, but the term marriage is a religous one, and should be left up to religous folk to use.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No, I for one feel you're completely right.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I could really care less what the homosexual element wants, or needs. It's not a priority of mine to concern myself one way or the other with the sexual habits of others, but as far as the quote above goes. Let me just say, you hit the nail on the head!

Rep for you when possible. (It says I can’t give you anymore right now.)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yeah. Maybe it did about 4 or 500 years ago, but not anymore, when science has taken its place so thoroughly.