[skeeter]

Granting same sex couples equal rights and protections under the law, and applying a term other than “marriage” to same sex unions would best serve the needs of the individuals (and their rights, under the Constitution) and the equally compelling interests of society.

To propose such an alternative is to profess ignorance of the motives of the pro-gay marraige forces.

They don't want fair. They want us to bless their lifestyle by saying there is NO difference between their's and our's.

And even then they won't be satisfied.

[LibertarianLiz]

Check my post #3 for a more on this; but, I have to say that in CA, gays already had a “civil union” law that gave them EVERY advantage that married couples had; but, it wasn’t enough.

[DJ MacWoW]

Although the 3% which is gay deserves reasonable accommodation in the interests of non-discrimination and equal protection

Since when is it discrimination to deny special rights for aberrant behavior?

“A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships.

Hence the virulent spread of disease among homosexuals. What is honorable in that that they should get special rights? The very behavior that they want recognized kills them.

And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

Destroying the basis for marriage will save it? Are people in this country REALLY that stupid?

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[LearsFool]

Perhaps Germany really does need lebensraum. If we let them go ahead and keep Czechoslovakia, they’ll probably be satisfied.

/stoopid

[cartervt2k]

Maybe I’m going to get flamed for this, but I think once Republicans are back in power they should propose a constitutional amendment that permits any 2 people to marry but also outlaws abortion. That will at least provide 50-60 years of safeguards for the unborn until activist judges have constructed enough precedents to render it useless. Also, in all honesty, I think it’s just going to be a matter of 20-30 years before most states allow gay marriage anyway (just looking at trends), so we might as well try to get something out of it.

I can live with gay people marrying each other (they can answer for their actions when they are judged) if it ends the slaughter. And, I know there would be plenty of legal ripple effects to consider with this (religious groups and adoption, namely). Realistically, since killing babies in utero is a sacrament of the left, I suspect that would never fly anyway, but maybe it would serve to chip away at some of the gay ‘Rat voter base. Just an idea.

[mimi from mi]

As a preface, I am a Catholic and married almost 50 years; however, I believe banning someone over the legal age to get a marriage license is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Let them get the marriage license and then try to find a priest, rabbi, minister, imam (or whoever marries the Islamists)to bless their marriage. Chances are they will only find a left-leaning judge. I also think this has to be on a national level and not state by state, so when they get ready to divorce, any state could provide that.

[Pollster1]

My opinion of "gay marriage" matches that expressed by Abraham Lincoln:

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln.

[lurk]

Gay and straight marriage can never be the same.

There’s only one arrangement where the fun parts both fit and function.

And all the shouting in the world won’t change it.

[Sergio]

I say use the lefties tactics against them.

Call the male practitioners of homo eroticism “lesbians”, and the female practitioners “gay”. When they try to correct you, tell them that it's all the same to you. When they tell you that it is not the same, that it is very different, and the different names are used to denote those differences, you spring the trap.

Then why should we call a union between homoerotic couples “marriage”. It's not the same, it's very different, and it should have a different name to denote those differences.

[DesertRenegade]

create an institution precisely analogous to traditional marriage, but to call it by a different name, Here we go again. No offense, but I can't believe people can be this stupid. If you honestly see the absolute idiocy of allowing two men 'marrying' each other, you should see that it's insane to promote an exact duplicate. This is exactly the trap the homosexual militants have set. A decade down the road, they will put that to the Supreme Court as "separate but equal". The fact is that 2 men or 2 women can't procreate and have no reason to marry and receive all those benefits. We are going to weaken the whole foundation of our culture if we legitimize this perversion endorsing sodomite 'marriage' in everything but the name.

[little jeremiah]

There is actually no such thing as a “homosexual”. At any given point in time, there are people who want to practice same sex sodomy, but that number changes all the time as new people enter that group, and people leave that group. There are many former homosexuals.

There is no earthly reason why an amorphous, changing group of people whose only common characteristic is that at the present time they prefer to practice same sex sodomy (and not necessarily exclusively) to get any special legal recognition.

None whatsoever. And there are many reasons why they should not.

[fwdude]

Then the blogger is FOR same-sex “marriage.” Now we get it.