Marriage

Hey guys, quick question. Where did the idea of marriage come from?

Because if my research is correct, it comes from the Jews (Before Christ). If thats the case, isn't the same-sex MARRIAGE a slap in the face to their religion?

Why don't they call it a civil union? The only benefit that I've heard besides living together is collecting insurance after a death, making important medical decisions, etc. If thats the case, why cant they just apply get a civil union?

Because in all honesty, if marriage has these deep religious roots (from a religion that bans homosexuality)....

Thanks guys

Curtis

PS: Honestly, if all youre going to do is mock PRESIDENT George Bush or give me a hard time, just dont even reply. I just want some input ok??

BBVD, If practical matters were the only things that drove people to get married, married people would comprise even less a percentage of the population than they do now. Some folks really do want to proclaim their love and undying devotion - in our society we call that marriage.

Times change and morals change. Remember that 150 years ago, freedom had a totally different meaning for a black man as opposed to a white man.

I'm not certain where I stand on the issue of gay marriage. I know that I react badly when I perceive discrimination and I do see discrimination against homosexuals. I do not see how gay marriage is a slap in the face to any religion nor do I see it doing irrepairable harm to the institution. At the same time, I am concerned that a large number of gay activists seem to be in this fight based on ideology only. Tough choices.

I believe it's in Leviticus... Something about a how a man should not have sex with another man.

Marriage was originally when a man and a woman were to grow in faith together. That was the basis. Entirely religious.

Curtis

Do you know what else it says in Leviticus BVD's?

Where shall we start.....

How about 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Gays? It says kill them.

How else does the guiding hand of Leviticus suggest we live our lives? How about this gem, 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Again, adulterers?.....kill them.

More, this time from Deuteronomy 21:18:

"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid."

Lousy son? Kill him.

Now....what do YOU suggest the punishment for adultery should be? Does it differ from the Bible?

You aren't seriously suggesting we live by five thousand year old laws are you because I've got some doosies from around the same time period.

H2O....why not post a link to some chicken hawk sex movie here so we can all appreciate the love of one male for another male. What has gay got to do with it? Perhaps the panic over making same sex marriage legal or should we say acceptable is to legitimize it. To take the scorn away. One man having anal sex with another man is a beautiful thing isn't it? maybe those stone age people had the right idea?

aw grampys widdle Bible makes him vewy mad.



How typical of you to ignore the perfectly valid questions I raise because answering them would 'foil' YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE.

Should we kill homosexuals, adulterers and drunks? The Bible says.....

Personally, I think the proposal to make gay marriages legal is a conspiracy of divorce lawyers...

------------------------------------------------------------

stlhdh20,

If you are now intersested in studying and following the Bible (a book containing the old and new testiments)---that is GREAT!

Google 'ya later

Look bible boy...if BVD's is going to use the old testament as the basis for his hatred then I am going to use the old testament to show how idiotic that hatred is.

Note:

You could have made the same statement without sounding like a demeaning *sshole. If you value this board and interacting with me in any way I suggest you start coming at me from a different angle or we just aren't going to get along in here. If you want an answer from me, start being less of a demeaning ass when we are discussing things......mmmmk? In exchange I might return the favor.

I'm not an EXPERT on the Bible but I studied it closely for 15 years, have completely read it twice, the last time about theree years ago. In hindsight, I'd say I've studied it more than the average christian. So, by assuning that I am merely a Bible googler you've stepped too far out on the limb again and shown yourself to be piously self-reightous. Feel good?

I've studied the Bible specifically to defend it from being misused by people like you. I'm sure we can exchange gems of homophobic wisdom from the new testament as easily as we have the old, I'm just too tired to give it my full attention right now.

Not something I want to see. As long as it's behind closed doors then I don't see it, so who cares? If you want to stop people from getting married just because you don't like the idea of them in the sack together, then why stop with gays? Add fat people and old people to the list. I don't want to see them do it either. Hell, throw hairy people on the list too.

BBVD is asking a legitimate question. It has nothing to do with hatred as far as I can tell. H2o, do you know him personally and know his agenda aside from his honest (and perhaps a little naive) question??


The question and point made suggest that marriage is essentially a religious institution. The purpose is many fold including forming a strong family unit that is the cornerstone of society and the families within.

Overtime it became clear to societies around the world that aside from the religious aspects, stable marriages and families made for stable communities, economies, and countries.

Clearly marriage is not immune from attack and as the 'lawyer jokes' in this thread indicate, we continue to see the institution lose ground in our society - even in the lives of the religious people who generally feel the strongest about it.

In the end, marriage is not just about 'love'. It is not just about children or families. It is not just about social, legal, or monetary privilege\status. It is about all these things and more. At the core, for those belonging in some way to the Jewish, Christian, and other groups whose religion has helped shape and define (and created) marriage as we know it, it is a sacred and very personal covenant between them and God.

I think the idea that gays somehow need marriage to be equal or happier is complete non-sense.

I think most people who feel strongly about man + woman marriage would quickly choose to give up some of the government\healthcare\taxes\etc 'privileges' that come with being married if that is what it takes to keep the traditional definition of marriage in tact. Marriage should be recognized by churches, families, society\culture - and not government.

Government should be in the business (maybe) of recognizing civil unions - as a way to promote and reward stable families and relationships that are beneficial to our economy, security, etc.

Therefore, if a certain church on capital hill decides to marry a same sex couple, brother and sister, cousins, etc - it is up to that church to make the call. It is up to society and individuals there in to decide how legitimate they think that marriage is.

Most churches will choose support only man + woman marriages based on how they feel their religion\God has created\defined the institution. But this is what freedom of religion is all about - right?

In either case, the gay couple married on Capitol Hill or the hetero couple married in Forks, WA can both apply for state\federal recognized civil unions for tax, health care, and other purposes.


Well, that's my thoughts anyway. I think the gay activists driving this (and their lawyers) would gain a little more respect and ground if they would show a little respect for the those who feel strongly about traditional marriage. Find common ground, seek equal GOVERNMENT recognition, but respect those who have strong religious or cultural feelings. Respecting diversity needs to go both ways...

Yes, marriage is a religious institution. I get it. I'm not sure what the point is though?

So...does that mean marriage is ONLY for the religious? If so, define religious. Is merely believing in God enough? Church twice a month, twice a year....what?

Furthermore as stated its a Jewish institution at that. Why should Christians be allowed to marry if this is the logic being used?

Why stop there? How about this....ugly people should not be allowed to marry. I don't want to see two ugly people walking down the street holding hands. It offends me. The thought of two ugly people entangled in the missionary position is sickening.

Ban it.

There is another school of thought on this subject.....

Marriage goes against nature. It is against the nature of men to be with a single partner their entire lives. In fact biologically speaking in order to ensure the furtherance of ones bloodline a male should inseminate as many females as he can in his lifetime.

This is the case in most matriarchal societies, Samoans and ancient Hawaiians for example. Interestingly, the family units of both societies are/were among the 'tightest' of any culture until christian missionaries changed that aspect of their culture. This in turn led to the crumbling of the matriarchal family unit and the downfall of these beautiful cultures.

I find these cultural differences fascinating, growing up in rural Hawaii I was immersed in the culture of the ancient Hawaiians. The 'sanctity' of marriage didn't do much for them.

Just an alternate perspective is all.

two separate issues.

Religous marriage- Usually a non issue with Gays because most churches would not marry them.

State Sactioned marrige- generally to assign feduciary rights and resposibilites for obligations,benifts and upon death . Probably should be called a civil union. Why should anyone not be able to assign thier benefits or assets to one of their choosing?


To uphold the constitution of the US Gays need to have all rights Granted under the powers of the constitution. Anything else is discrimination. Amending the constitution re gay marriage might be a leagal game but it sets a dangerous precedent. That of altering the document to exclude a group. It's wrong and a waste of time.

BBVD,

You are correct in that marriage began as a religious institution. I don't know when or where it first became a state institution as well. Of course, not so long ago, many states and religions were one and the same. Many countries/governments have official state religions. Fast-forwarding to comtemporary America, marriage is both a religious and a state institution. A recognized marriage is one for which there is a state-issued marriage license, regardless of whether a religious service certified the marriage or not. Since being married in this country involves having a state-issued marrigage license, and since it involves a number of insurance, inheritence, and legal guardian/caregiver issues, marriage is very much a state issue.

As an aside, when I got married many long years ago, I truthfully wondered why I had to obtain a marriage license from the state. I figured since I was being married in a church and it was being officiated by my pastor that the whole affair was none of the state's business. What I learned is that the state made marriage its business because the state has an interest in knowing who is going to support the kids that result from a marriage. That is, the state doesn't want to get stuck paying welfare for kids if able-bodied parents are trying to be dead beats. There were likely other reasons, too, but the thing about who pays to raise kids is mainly what I recall. Seems kind of funny if that is the pretext for denying marriage licenses to homosexuals, doesn't it?

States and our nation are institutions of law. The laws derive their authority from the state and federal constitutions. The constitutions guarantee equal protections and considerations for all citizens. Those guarantees are not limited just to heterosexual citizens. Consequently, judges are ruling that denying homosexuals state-issued marriage licenses denies them certain guaranteed freedoms that belong to all citizens. Hence, we are in a transitional period of extending state-sactioned marriage and its attendant benefits to homosexual citizens who were previously denied their due constitutionally protected rights.

I can understand why some relgious people would deny homosexuals the covenant of marriage for religious reasons if their religion is opposed to that. I don't understand the reasoning for denying a state-recognized marriage to them, however, unless that person is trying to use their religious convictions to impose their religious will on other people through a state regulated process. That seems like state sanctioning of a particular religious doctrine, which is illegal under the separation of church and state, however.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

bbvd, i assume you are a christian,? god himself instituted marriage in the garden of eden, , im sure you know the story, many want to bend the truth to support a life of lies, but thats the way it goes, wickedness will be around till jesus comes back and crushes it.. its god's will that no one perishes but all men come to repentance..

It is also important to point out that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. So those that want to make a biblical case for those that are gay being sinners. It is no worse than telling a little white lie like one would who is say divorced after being married in a Christian church. . There is no degree in sin it's all just sin.

I doubt jesus would turn his back on a gay married or not asking for forgiveness. Taking the works as a bible on the whole in spirit.

H2O...My distaste for the gay lifestyle has nothing to do with the bible or religion. I think the gay marriage craze is simply an attempt to legislate through the courts another perverse behavior into respectability and acceptability. Forcing more of the left wing agenda on the majority through the courts. The majority of Americans oppose the perverse homosexual lifestyle and given a vote I think the marriage of two women or two men would be tossed in the garbage where it belongs. Proponents like to point to the bible and "far right" conservatives as being the only ones who are bigoted enough to oppose gay marriage and partial birth abortion among all the other things the "progressives" want to ram down our throats.

So go sell your arguments somewhere else because most of us aren't buyin....

Why doesn't John "just keep telling them we're from France" Kerry go on record with the rest of the 'enlightened people' and say that he supports states and federal governments legally recognizing gay and lesbian marriages?

He seems to be sensitive to the same sex issue:
http://boortz.com/more/cartoons/071504_running_mate.html

"My distaste for the gay lifestyle has nothing to do with the bible or religion"

Then please explain WHY you are opposed to it and then refer back to my comments about ugly people 'in flagrante dilecto'.

Also, substantiate the way in which a gay couple being married rams anything down your throat.

Not too complicated. Just think it is perverse. Don't agree with it. Personal opinion. Simple as that.

Maybe you can site some evidence that shows in the rest of nature pairings of same sex species. I don't see two male salmon spawning or two male geese tending to their chicks..or a male horse buggering another male horse. Oh I'm sure you'll google up some evidence to support the gay lifestyle but I just don't see it as normal or natural.

Too each his own though.....

Then let them marry and quit worrying about it.

A little transfer of logic here. if by some peoples logic here you have to have served in the military to support the war .

Does that mean to support Gay marriage you have to have been gay? If not does that make you a Gayhawk maybe a Homohawk or even a ***hawk? Unless some of you are coming out!

Always striving for consistancy :p

------------------------------------------------------------
Why stop with gays and lesbians?

There are brothers and sisters out there that would like to have their very 'close', loving and special feelings for each other legitamized by state and federal governments. Besides, the economic boom from increased marriages in Cowlitz county could be very beneficial to the area

Grandpa-

Examples of homosexual behavior exist in species as advanced as apes (Benobo Chimpanzees as a prime example) and as simple as protozoa. You google it....I learned it in school.

So your definition of 'freedom' is banning stuff merely cuz we don't like it?

Here's my ban list:

Idiots

Ugly people

Stupid people

Tampon commercials

Boy Bands

Divas

....and on and on.

Again, substantiate the way in which a gay couple being married rams anything down your throat.

You don't have to see it unless your porn store wanderings happen to 'accidentally' take you down the gay porn aisle. Even then, avert your eyes if you can.....

If your only objection to gay marriage is that you don't approve won't you admit that is a pretty thin argument for banning something outright? If not, why?

There you go again. :rolleyes:

If I sat here waving a rainbow flag advocating that everyone should have a gay wedding, as long as I don't have to, then yeah, I guess that would be relevant.

But that's the GOP way; do as I say not as I do.

GH

:p means I am poking fun. Don't take yourself so serious. if you married a man I could careless. It would mean one more leftist out of the gene pool and I am all for that.

Not too complicated. Just think it is perverse. Don't agree with it. Personal opinion. Simple as that.

You know what's perverse?

Out of one corner of your mouth sending soldiers off to die for 'freedom' and out of the other denying another man his freedom because you don't like what he does.

Example:

I hate bluegrass. Makes me want to vomit. I think its wrong and it goes against nature to play the guitar all Lamar Latrell. One of my best friends loves it and forces me to listen to it every time i go to his place, rams it down my throat as it were.

Using the exact same logic, if I could marshall the forces of metal uniting all headbangers across the country (especially the rich ones) into convincing the majority of voters or the right senator that it is somehow perverted to listen to bluegrass we could simply ban it.

Identical logic (albeit a horribly constructed sentence). Identical impingement of freedom.

No?




Constitutional amendment to ban bluegrass...who's in?

At least crack heads have an excuse :p

One has to wonder at times.....

I mean, the guys arguments are vaporized into acrid smoke and he keeps coming back for more and more....

Using republican style logic, whether he's ever touched the suff or not, he MUST be a crackhead.

H20,
What arguement DB. I am not oppsed to gay marriage if your reading glasses slipped.

on other topics.

My arguements have only been countered with ad hominem attacks against GW. Nothing has been countered or even addressed for that matter. I will throw up another one in a few minutes so you losers can rail on GW ad hominem of course

------------------------------------------------------------

Lamar Latrell?

You may want to re-think your character references when analogizing an argument condemning the thought processes of people who oppose legalizing gay marriages.

happenstance that lamar is of the homosexual persuasion. i'm talking about playing guitar with a loose sloppy wrist, which he clearly has.

guitar should come from the gut and forearm.

Well I have to do a John Kerry on Gay marriage.


My neutral position was based on the constitution and assumtion that not granting a civil union was a violation of civil rights. I was wrong. Further review shows there is no violation of a gay persons civil rights . Re marriage they have 100% of the rights that non gay people have.
Let me explain this. A gay person can marry anyone that a non gay person can so there is no discrimination and no violation of the gay persons civil rights. With that I am against Gay marriage.

what rights were you reviewing, do share?

..and once more for the dense, elaborate on this... "A gay person can marry anyone that a non gay person can"

A gay man can marry anyone that a straight man can. A gay woman can marry anyone that a stright woman can. So there is no discrimmination.

Be careful not to flop out the unsueable arguement of comparison of the old law against interacial marriage it will not work.

A balck man could not marry the same a a white man. Race was the basis of this discrimination.

Sex has always be a line accepted as a defining difference.

wha huh?

can a gay man marry a gay man? because that's what we're talking about here, right?

"Sex has always be a line accepted as a defining difference."

Not true....

In the business world you are not allowed to look at men and women differently in the work place when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting otherwise it could be construed as discrimination.

Again I say (see previous post on Cowlitz county marriages), why stop with allowing gays and lesbians marriages being legally recognized by state and federal governments?

If as a society we're going to be truly 'enlightened' and all inclusive with marriages:

Why not let brothers and sister marry?

Why not allow one man to be married to several women at the same time--or one women to be married to multiple men simultaneously?

Brother and sister shoudn't marry because of inbreeding. But you already knew that. And since you're stirring the pot, I can think of a valid reason why a man shouldn't marry more than one person. Can you?

You tell us why there shouldn't be polygomy. It was okay in the bible for thousands of years. It's existed in virtually every culture at one time or another. So why not?

Originally posted by goharley:

[QB] Brother and sister shoudn't marry because of inbreeding.--GH

What if one of them was sterile and couldn't have children, and just wanted their special-close and loving relationship recognized legally by state and federal governments? Since they wouldn't be able to have biological children of their own, perhaps they could adopt----if they wanted children.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You tell us why there shouldn't be polygomy. It was okay in the bible for thousands of years.--GH

[was=old law]

I have said before that I am not stating MY opposition to gay marriage using biblical teachings---I oppose it (same sex marriages) because it does not benefit our society (see following post).
------------------------------------------------------------
It's existed in virtually every culture at one time or another. So why not?--GH

So has canibalism--should we now legalize that too?

Your cannabalism analogy is really stupid so we'll ignore that.

Actually, the question posed to you was why there shouldn't be polygamy.

But since you brought it up, why exactly does same sex marriage not benefit society?

Rory

I think Churches should be illegal just as you do gay marriages

"why exactly does same sex marriage not benefit society"

Imagine if all the male fish tried to spawn only with other male fish and taught all the little fish that this was normal. How many fish would we have in a few years?

Here's my selfish take:

I'm in the process of getting divorced, so for every two guys out there that enter into a monogamous relationship together... that leaves me a couple more potential ex-wives!

TK,

Are we having a shortage of humans?

Lame reason # 542.

Bring up marrying your dog, so we can discuss lame reason # 412.

Dans

Why would there have to be a shortage of humans to use a valid biological point as a con to gay marriage? Procreation in a family setting is one of the primary points of marriage that is undisputable. Try again.

4Salt , Are you the Gov of NJ? :p :p

------------------------------------------------------------

Now that's a logical argument--it's hard to argue with logic.

"Did you happen to get introduced to DesertDog's youngest daughter? Divorced and she fishes. Not hard on the eyes either!"


Unfortunately I didn't Aunty. Perhaps I could persuade you to play matchmaker at the next 'Tilla.

Don't be a doofus, now. It's not a VALID biological point when there are 5 + billion people roaming the world. We're not going to run out, are we?

You gonna fight to ban marriage between those couples who choose to remain childless, too?

YOU try again.

Dans,

We are not talking about the rest of the world we are talking about the US.
Thats like saying let the Steelhead die out there are plenty of fish in the world. It's a valid biological point even if you do not think so. BTW US birth rates are not keeping pace with the rest of the world which has dire economic consequences for your kids and grandkids. So you should be concerned about it even if you think it's a non issue.

Go outside HERE.

Any shortage of people?

Married HETEROSEXUALS are choosing not to have kids.........and this is due to gay marriage?

C'mon.

Dire economic consequences? Like making more money because there are less people competing for jobs?

One unrelated to the other as the question was about the effect of gay marriage on society.

It is a biological fact that being exclusively gay takes you out of the breeding pool. Whatever limited effect on the population does not change this as a biological fact. In context if violates one of the primary historical and cultural reasons for marriage. BTW hetrosexuals that do not have kids pay a tax penalty so there is even an economic reason to have kids.

Bottom line the majority of Americans feel gay marriage should be banned. They do not have to give a reason they can just vote. Now if the gay lobby wants to use the legislature to propose a law or an amendment allowing gay marriage they are free to do such. It will never pass. Using the courts to destroy our system of government and right ot self rule to force acceptance of gay marriage is wrong and un American.

OK, it's a biological fact..........but a fact that's meaningless in this conversation.

It is a biological fact that being exclusively gay takes you out of the breeding pool.

False....

Many Lesbians are finding sperm donors and having children. I assume that it is entirely possible that two gay men could find a surrogate mother with the same outcome.

Can two gay men breed? No. Can two lesbian women breed? No. Are they entirely out of the breeding pool? No.

Good I hope a gay family moves behind me as the Hispanic family with 11 freaking kids, 2 parents, 1 grandmother, 2 barking dogs and a god dam pigeon is like living behind a sea of commotion.

Oh so people should have kids to avoid taxes rather then have them because they choose to bring a child into this world out of love. Keep trying.....

Only if you are hanging around the Mullet types

Ya that's what the KKK used to say about Blacks having equal right. No sense debating about it the courts will rule in favor of gays one day or another as they should.

"Oh so people should have kids to avoid taxes rather then have them because they choose to bring a child into this world out of love. Keep trying....."

No the country clearly recognizes the economic benefit in population growth and has provided a benfit for participation. Makes no statement about why someone should choose to have a kid anymore than say free public education.

An overwhelming majorityof Americans do not support gay marriage or using the courts to render their decison moot. I am sure some mulletypes are included.

Race is not even a close comparison to this issue as gays have 100% of the rights of straight Americans. Please prove otherwise if you disagree.

Hint: You cannot use the old arguement that straights can marry who they love and gays cannot. Love is an emotion and not a basis for any of our our laws. Name another law that allows for such an emotion for the primary reason it exhists.

Yeah.......whoever heard of the court making a ruling on the law?

4Salt..you are such a clean cut young man. Considering that the marriage thing hasn't worked with a woman why not try this gay thing everybody here is raving about? I hear it is really cool......Go to http://www.gay.com for more information.

Gramps
If you are trying to flush 4 out of the closet I can tell you he is straight up Heterosexual so you can stop with the 4-play because you are not getting a date :p

don't worry..just one of them there jokes....atleast a feable attempt at one.

Wow... Wasn't expecting THAT much... But there is something you are missing out on h2o... thats what Rory Bellows said.

Christians are about CHRIST. Christianity is about FAITH, not religion.

I didn't ask a hateful question. You are sorely mistaken, and I also specifically asked that you not answer if all you were going to do was give me a hard time.

Yes, I do hate homosexuality. Part of it because I think it is distasteful, part of it because of the fact that I am a Christian.

No, I do NOT hate homosexuals. Choosing to live your life as a homosexual is a sin, but so is committing adultery (h2o, I don't want to know about your private life, but why bring adultery up? No one in here has admitted to such wrongdoings..), so is even the simplest form of lust. I really have no hatred for anyone, but I do hate the sins that they, and I, commit.

Just thought I should clarify for you where I stand h2o.

Curtis

p.s. uh oh

Its a position I can respect as well...

...but address my question above if you would in regards to banning things we as a soceity find distasteful.

Are feminine hygiene commercials next? blugrass?

Isn't this country based on freedom Curtis? What kind of freedom are you advocating for?

You know aunty the more we talk about it, the more distatsetful it gets.

So what factors did you consider before you CHOSE to act as a heterosexual? At what age did you make the decision? Are you saying that if it wasn't for your religious views, you could possibly live a homosexual lifestyle?

You might smoke cigarettes or drink because your buddies do.

But NOBODY is going to sleep with another man because their friends do. It isn't a choice.

Did you ever have a kid in your class you knew was "different" way back in elementary school? You think they were "choosing" to be that way way back then?

Who's going to choose a life of ridicule and discrimination?

------------------------------------------------------------

Women don't choose to have their menstrual cycle, they are just natuarlly orienated to regularly have them.

So it's not PC to discriminate towards the advertised products that help them with their perfectly natural orientation.

You periodphobe!

Grandpa

I knew you were just having fun so was I

Never fear Grandpa! Just cause this marriage didn't work out, don't mean the next one won't. Plus, I am now free to "test drive" some of the newer models... of the opposite gender of course!

Test drive?

As in "Bend over, I'll drive"?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

You're catchin' on Dan!

Being a Criminal Justice major, I didn't take to many AP or Psych classes. In the few I took, however, I honestly don't remember where in your brain your sexuality is controlled from.

Now, debatedly, since true libralism would support Evolution over Creation, wouldn't true libralism believe that since heterosexuality is the only way to carry on the human race, homosexuality must just be a sick fetish or cancer to the race??

Honestly, I am just trying to get your opinions. I'm sorry if all this offends you and you decide to refer to me as a "hater" or whatever (Dan said it best "Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot."), but this is mostly just research. I know how I feel and I do want to hear about how you counterattack my opinions. If this is through insult, obviously, your opinion means little.

Thanks

Curtis

That's what I'm talkin about 4Salt!!! Test drive until you find a woman you can get along with. I recommend looking at a sign language class for a good looking one who can't speak. If she has a flat spot on her head all the better, that way you will have a place to set your beer.

Oh Oh....I can hear auntym coming to call me a woman hater again....