adj4u says:

that is the issue, the certain public wants a one sex society they want only heterosexual sex

TRIBO:

the majority rules my lady, it has been this way here for over 200 yrs., now you want it to change?
you want laws that we agreed to be governed by to now make exception, hmmm.



if same gender sex is not normal why is it so prevalent in other members of the mammal species

TRIBO:

there are over 8000 species - how many species do we see this in? - list please!



they want special treatment - i think not, they want equal treatment for sure.


TRIBO:

so by giving them the right to be "married" when they are not capable of adding anything to society as to child bearing [the main reason for marriage] they should reap any rewards not due to hetero couples in return? how is that equalizing anything? civil union will give them actually more rights than hetero couples living together, whats the problem - why do you or others insist that it is the right of a minority to change the definition of a long standing law? what do you win? really? only the right to the persons belongings if they die to be awarded to you instead of going elsewhere and other such things - get a legal contract that spells out what your partner gets if that's the case everything brought up can be legally attended to with out the need for a "MARRIAGE" certificate!!

What i see here is an agenda driven circumstance that is ego or self-righteously based, it has nothing to do with "equal rights" but the rights of some who feel slighted in some way - grow up - get over it - as i say all the contracts are available to see that things mentioned don't happen - as to adoption, that is the same as non married hetero couples who can not adopt either.



there are many male female marriages that do not bear fruit does that mean they are no longer married i think not -- but because you know ahead of time that these two same gender people are not going to bear fruit you do not allow them to be together.

TRIBO:

the diff is my dear is two fold, first you come up with a scenario which is not the norm and establish your view upon it, ain't buying it sorry, that's not the case in the "MAJORITY". we could make straw man all day it will do nothing to further the discussion.

secondly - as with all hetero couples, the ABILITY to procreate >>>exist<<< - that's the diff!! with gay couples it never will be the case. not biologically anyway. and that's what i am saying, marriage is a term from time immemorial to used between a man and a woman, you can argue til your blue in the face - it won't change the definition - sorry.




if not how long of a time frame do thy have before the marriage is dissolved for the lack of bearing fruit

N/A sorry



and if the bearing fruit is the issue at hand in the marriage argument only as a tool to ban something then should not the use of said argument be used to stop the killing of the fruit that need to be bore to permit marriage


TRIBO:? are you talking of abortion?




also if it is known that one can not bear fruit then they to should be barred from any marriage as well should they not
why is it permitted for a man and a woman who can not bear fruit be treated any differently than any other couple that can not bear fruit

pppphhhhhhheeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww



TRIBO:

i dont know how many or the percentage of people who get married - >>know in advance<< they cannot bare children - do you?

the reason it would be "permissable" is because it does not go against the long held common law.
here agian your argueing to change definitions to suit your or their agendas, this has nothing to do with rightness - just selfish desires - will it diminish the love bewtween them if they dont get married? Whats most important the love or the marriage? If my desire for my wife and hers for mine is such that nothing else matters then why would it be different for the gays? or - anyone else? You/they put themselves in a box and then get upset and angry because they cant have what they fully knew thay couldn't have and then throw a hissy fit because of it!! C'mon, get real - get truthful, What is "GAY" >>>pride<<< all about if not to feel they are as normal as eveyone else? and thats true of ALL special interst groups no matter who they are - its like you know the rules but dont want to adhere to them because you feel slighted in some way. wel thats human nature we all do it - but no matter what - its never going to change the definition of marriage no matter what political forces fall prey to the special interest groups.

do your research lady

why you assume i am female

do you think so because of my stand on this issue (do you think mare females are same gender oriented

democracy is the majority trampling the rights of the minority --- Thomas Jefferson

read the constitution certain rights are listed there and many would like to see them applied unequally --- if it was always the majority rule then there would be no need for the (equal rights issue on any level)

and no if the case was true majority get their way things would be totally different


same gender sex is prevalent in most farm animals (mammals)

many out in the wild as well

no i am not going to list them (anyone that has worked on a farm knows it (if you disagree go to a farm and pay attention for a few days

just out of curiosity with the divorce rate so high no adays and the fact that kids are so expensive i wonder how many married couples have permanent birth control methods used such as surgery to block sperm or egg release
using your argument then when someone that has this done and gets a divorce then they should never be permitted to get married again
so all you out there that have had vasectomy or tubal ligation you are not permitted to marry ever again till you can prove you can bear fruit

if you use the having of children the argument against same gender marriage then equal application is a must and if those that can not have children want to marry then they can not and when you apply for a marriage license you should have to take a futility test

i have yet to see a ligit argument to ban gay marriage that can be applied here

the having kids argument does not cut it unless you apply it across the board

and really tribo cut the endearments out of your posts to me i just believe in equal rights i am not gay you are not my type by a long shot sorry about that

sorry adj4u i did not look at your profile, my apologies.

as to the question at hand, MARRIAGE and it's definition - you offer nothing to disprove why it should be applied to a same sex marriage nor can you. everything else is just personal rhetoric of why you feel it should be so, it is your opinion just as mine is mine. I'll let it go at that, further discussion of our reasoning's will provide no answer to how many animals are "practicing" homosexuality - nor do i really care.

Whether Jefferson said what he said also does not change the definition of marriage nor the FACT that the majority rules [rightly or wrongly] and as to the question - again - does not touch on the subject of definition of marriage. if by chance you can find a different definition of what marriage is supposed to be , before this issue arose here in the USA - pre- 20th century, then i will be happy to discuss it further, otherwise there is no point in continuing the rhetoric, it leads nowhere.

Smileys everywhere! That's the gay behavior I like to see displayed!