This is getting off-tangent. Prop 8 =/= the pros and cons of Imperialism in AfricaBourbons3

Very true

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

There isn't a huge advantage to being married. It is just a label that homosexuals want so they can feel legitimate and piss off the church at the the same time.

superheromonkey

That's a huge assumption, especially since the Church wouldn't be performing these ceremonies.

And if its no big deal, why not just give it to them?

Because i think there is enough of a reason to allow it exclusively for heterosexual couples.

-reproduction purposes(not saying it is the biggest reason obviously a lot of marriages don't produce children, but most at least have the potential).

-The greater biological connection. (as stated previously)

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

Very true

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want. Link256

The reason that it is comparable is that, in both cases, it is fight for equality. Homosexuals not being able to marry is civil rights issue.

Until Homosexuals have the freedom do what ever other American can, including marriage, than, no, they do not have the freedom do whatever they want.

Don't be gay then you can do whatever you want.

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Bourbons3

Then don't teach homesexulaity in schools as normal and buiatful thing. When its not.

Not at all. It bans civil unions as well, does it not?fkholmes

no prop 8 only banned gay marrage not civil unions

I'm for civil unions just not marrage.

I'm afraid certain elaments in LBGT movenent might want the GOVT to force are churches to perform gay marrages. This would be a clear violation of sepedration of church and state.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.cowboymonkey21

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.

That won't work for man will it now?

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Danm_999

Father and son?

Brothers?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

So because a form of discrimination is less acute than a historic one, it doesn't need to be addressed?

Are you dense? I'm talking romaticly.

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.Danm_999

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.