i believe the sone is dueling banjos

How would you feel if Gay marriage was the social norm and the government wouldn't let yo marry a woman you liked? I can answer that: not good.

I could give a ------- if you beieve in god or worship an invisible butt sniffing monkey that lives in the heavens i could careless
the second point is that the goventment should get out of the marrage business all together it isnt my business nor the govt's to classify a union/marriage between anyone gay or straight

freedom isnt about limiting choices or even legislating personal preferances for or against its not a proper for our govt to do this

what im trying to say is whats next how will the limit our freedom now or legislate it into a rule or law.

i have never been gay nor do i feel like being so but i dont give a flying ------- up a gay mans ass so long and it not unpuckering mime k
get it let people do what they wants we live in the good old usa and if someone wants the shampoo bottle up their ass at a medium pace so be it.

if i wanna walk down the street picking my nose theirs not a damn thing anyone can do about it utill the govt make a law and enforces it then my nose picking freedom is gone then whats next will i have to endure

examples of this can be found all through history

because im black i have to drink from this fountain

thats how its starts look at the gun laws they are mostly ridiclous

one law begets a new law and so on and so forth

author of
(If being a homosexual is a choice? When did you decide to be straight? What was the date? How was it that you came to this very very important decision? Can you add some insightful banter on this subject of your sexual orentation, as wel as your decision the people in your life that guided to to this very very important decsion to be a hetrosexual person. if you cant answer these simple questions, then how was your sexual orentation a chioce)

If being a homosexual is a choice? When did you decide to be straight? What was the date? How was it that you came to this very very important decision? Can you add some insightful banter on this subject of your sexual orentation, as wel as your decision the people in your life that guided to to this very very important decsion to be a hetrosexual person. if you can answer these simple questions, then how was your sexual orentation a chioce

"Gay marriage is a JOKE!"

WellI'm not laughing.

it's marriage, the only difference is that its between people of the same sex. (and, granted, that xenophobic and homophobic people think it's some kind of obscene thing just because it's different.)

"Homos are sick nasty people!"

"Homos" (this is a term that may offend some people just in case you didn't know) are just people who love people of the same sex. The only sick people are those who feel that they have the right to tell gay person who to love and who not to love.

When you are a "fag" yourself, then you can tell other "fags" how they got to be that way. In the mean time and until then, keep quiet (STFU) unless you have something that is positive and supportive of ALL human beings.

Wow you're pretty angry. I also am Atheist but certainly was born gay. I can remember having a sweet crush on the boy down the street when I was 5 yrs old. As if I could decide anything then lol. Gay just happens. It happens in many many species and is a normal variant from a biological genetic process.

I think the gay marriage issue is absolutely stupid. If fornication and adultery is legal by all means then what the fvk use is a marriage in the first place?? Get rid of this stupid institution in the legal sense once and for all. Marriage only works within a moral framework and laws are not made for that.

People for gay marriage are the most idiotic people on earth. No one is coming into your bedrooms to see what you're doing anyway so why insist on legal recognition? Then when there is seperation you actually WANT to go through all the legal crap that goes with marriage?? You goddam insane people are the reason America is split. If we unload these morons from leeching off our backs we'll have a hands-down democratic lead in every branch of government. Most Americans are peaceful people who won't support the war. The only reason they're getting lassoed in is because of this stupid gay marriage issue.

I think it's perfect just the way it is. A Right-Wing Ralphie but no Left-Wing Lennie. That way it's "fair and balanced," like FOX News.

If you have nothing (or not much) of your personal thoughts and feelings invested in those issues, then of course you wouldn't understand and could possibly be "amazed."

For example, if you are a meat-eater who doesn't care about (or has pondered) the plight of animals raised for food, and if you are not gay or lesbian and don't care about the issue of gay marriage--well, then there you are, that answers your question.

Nice, but somewhat naive. The government gets into the marriage issue because it has rules on who can be taxed and how much. Married couples get tax benefits and tax penalties. It's all about taxes, honey.

The issue more is the legal rights that are tied into marriage. Tax benifits, visitation, protection from falling out, etc. So although, I believe that marriage is just a tool for religions to try and control people it has been written into the laws of this country and it is discrimination to not allow everyone access to the beifits that are there. I suppose that people have decided that it is easier to allow homosexuals to marry but the more just thing to do is change the laws that give advantages to those who are married.
Casey?

> To me, the single issue that COTO [has been flogging] is:
> "It's [sic] perfectly acceptable for a group of people who share the same beliefs to control and restrict the behaviour of others."

This summary is accurate, although it's fair to say that it summarizes my central argument rather than amalgamates (i.e. 'reduces') of all my arguments. Hopefully the good forumites will poke in on our posts and come to the same conclusion.

One slight modification (although this is getting dangerously close to squabbling about semantics) is:

"It's perfectly understandable and perfectly acceptable for a group of people who share the same beliefs to control and restrict the behaviour of others."

I wholly endorse this statement.

> The great flaw in that argument is that it would be endorsed ONLY by a person in the group that is exerting the control. If COTO were in the "everyone else" or "others" category instead (the people being controlled), he would very probably ardently OPPOSE the very same argument he is proposing and supporting now.

I would indeed adamantly oppose the control and the restriction of behaviour if I was in the "everyone else" group.

My goal over the past week has been to demonstrate why this 'double-standard', given a framework in which 'right' and 'wrong' exist and are immutably defined, in no way implies that my argument is flawed. I have done my best to demonstrate how (excluding proponents of total lawlessness) the good forumites reading our correspondence to a greater or lesser degree also subscribe to the 'double-standard' as it pertains to other moral issues.

My supporting arguments include:

• A defence against common rebuttals to seed questions on the issue of gay marriage.
• An extended argument as to how 'control and restrict the behavior of others' very much applies to our society in other ways today.
• Rebuttals, here and here, to arguments on supremal moral relativism and lawlessness (i.e. anarchy).
• A continuation of founding father arguments.
• A defence against the ubiquitous 'it's broken anyway' argument.
• A description of why the definition of 'marriage', a simple word, is important, including my seminal arguments, which started this whole mess.
• A summary explaining my goals and my obstinacy in one little chatroom, over one week, on one small soapbox.
• Precedents for insidiousness.
• A discussion with another Christian on both the religious and functional basis for my beliefs, which continues onto previous pages in the forum.

Take from them what you will.

> If, for example, Muslims worked hard to [impose] rules of their Sharia religious law under pain of extremely harsh punishment or death, COTO would (I'm sure) fight vigorously to prevent exactly the same kind of religious-belief oriented control over other people that he now advocates (when it is his kind of like-minded Christians that do the controlling).

Indeed I would.
I fight to protect (in law) the institutions that I believe are worth protecting. I do not hate freedom.
As I have said before, "There is no supremal logic that dictates that I cannot be 'right' and a person of the Islamic faith cannot be 'wrong' by virtue of the fact that we are both intelligent and we disagree."

All the same, I understand and respect the commitment shown by proponents of Islam.

> That, in a nutshell, is COTO's argument, and why it is wrong in my opinion.

And that, in a nutshell, is why it shouldn't be. ;)

Your Pal,

COTO

Scandal! I accuse you of plagiarizing the post of the forumite before you. And... two before you. ... And... ten before you.

Yes, Christians indeed "want society to accept the 'Christian lifestyle,' and not merely accept it but to embrace it, adopt it and most importantly--conform to it."

I've been accused of arrogance elsewhere, and so I'll reply simply, "Yes. Indeed, that is a correct assertion."

BTW, Gaia is Earth in the Gaia mythos.

Regards,

COTO