George Bush Sr is an official witness at same-sex wedding

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

Asia as a whole is against homosexuality. Even in the friendlier enclaves of SE Asia, where the activity is tolerated, they don't recognize homosexual relationships.

 

Not if he only divorced his first three wives and is still married to his last.

 

Exactly. You were not subject to the same influences homos were. You do not have the same urges.

They never made a choice to have those urges. It is real easy to tell people they have a choice when you yourself do not have those urges.

Actions are a choice. Urges are not.

- - - Updated - - -

It means you cannot say homosexuality is a maladaptive mutation.

 

Of course it is! Dont be rediculous.

 

Anyone else think the more a person rails against homosexuality the more likely they're simply suppressing their own gay tendencies?

 

That is a good argument, actually. While I do support gay marriage, I dont think its absence is something that violates anyones freedoms or rights and the issue is quite overblown. Legal marriage, gay or straight, is hardly a right or some freedom that government is obligated to grant to people. Even if it would not exist at all, nobodys rights would be violated.

When it comes to gay marriage, Id like to argue more one the grounds of discrimination, meaning that if government does grant some special status to pairs of people, then it should not depend on their gender. But doesnt that still make single people treated unfairly...

 

The irony of you saying this, has not escaped me.

 

I call it nothing to do with gay marriage.

I call it confusing the issue.

 

In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of "right organ in the right object at the right time," which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.

which makes it quite iro ic that your username is "you lie".

so stop lying.

 

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. You simply don't have the right to restrict others choices.

 

What justification would you have for this special treatment for gay and straight couples? Why not any two consenting adults who desire marriage? Seems absurd to argue that marriage limited to heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation, cant be tolerated. But marriage limited to heterosexual and homosexuals, the only couples with the potential of having sex is perfectly acceptable. This has nothing to do with equality and is instead inequality by design in an attempt to promote acceptance of homosexuality.
I applaud the city of Austin who recently extended city employee benefits to "domestic partners" and unlike any other state or city they didn't limit domestic partners to gay couples in an attempt to promote homosexuality and instead made such partnerships available to any two consenting adults who live together. EQUALITY instead of the inequality you propose in an attempt to promote acceptance of homosexuality.

 

Marriage limited to husbands and wives isn't discrimination against gays and lesbians. Two heterosexual men would also be excluded from marriage. Not because they are homosexual but instead because they have no potential of procreation. MATRIMONY, Latin root of the word, MATER, MOTHER. Only women give birth and only men are legally obligated to provide and care for that child when she does.

 

All choices to receive governmental tax breaks and entitlements are heavily restricted

 

So Western law is determined by the latins? We are not able to determine our own laws, we must abide by the latins.

Give me a break

 

Ta bdeaks have nothing to do with it. I'd remove them for all marriages, but it's simply not applicable to a debate which ultimately boils do to the following:

Freedom of choice
Personal responsibility
Not interfering in others business

 

I didn't think this thread was about same sex marriage, which is on it's way to becoming legal in 50 states, and nothing short of the end of the world is going to stop it.

This thread is about a former president, a self described conservative (Yeah, I know, RINO) , Reagan's vice President, witnessing a same sex marriage.
Not just attending, but signing as witness.
I believe that means the debate is over, the process is in motion, the result is a foregone conclusion.
One by one, the states, in roughly the order of the average level of education, have adopted and will adopt laws legalizing same sex marriage, until it gets to the point where momentum clears the table.

 

Says the guy who insists that government license and regulate homosexual relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before.

 

Marriage has no legal framework unless its licensed. And no one if forcing anyone to do it!

Are you being purposefully obtuse? It comes across as childishness.

 

No one claimed anyone was being forced to do anything. Step away from the strawmen if you can.

 

No, but someone was trying to pretend that not allowing gays to marry, was somehow doing them a favour...

 

No, someone was trying to pretend that extending the licensing and regulation of marriage to homosexual couples is about personal responsibility and not interfering in others business.

 

Irony? The only reason you started this thread was to troll and flame. Instead of mentioning that this is a giant step forward to have a former republican president celebrating a gay marriage, you decide it is more fitting for your divisive hate to disparage those that are changing.

I have to wonder what kind of person would celebrate dividing other humans like you do. It's disgusting really

 

That's exactly what it's about, there is no pretense there at all. The US Right wails on about these two things all the time, yet they want big government to prevent a section of society from making their own decisions and therefore accepting repsonsibiility for them. They effectively want a nanny state mentality for the gays, because apparently being gay means they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony of you saying this, has not escaped me.

 

Precisely the opposite. You want the nanny state extended to include gays. MORE government interference as opposed to less.

 

Mother of god.

Currently the law prevents gays from marrying. Allowing gays to marry reduces legistaltion in effect, not increases it.

If you can't see that, there's something wrong.