Oh wow... Well, I have never heard of an dog doing that.

I have heard, however, of primates in South America that have sex many times a day to relieve tension. ALL of those primates do it, from the oldest to the youngest, to each other. And what do you know? They all live in harmony too!

Oh my, where to begin? First of all, this seems to have evolved into a petty argument about Scotland and England. Who cares? Can we please get back to the original article? I really enjoyed it and thought it had a lot of good points.

"So, what's next......what if brothers wanted to marry, would you be okay with that? Or what if brother and sister wanted to marry? What if a man wants to legally have sex with a 4 year old girl, is that okay as well?"

You, like many other people against gay marriage, argue that it will be a slippery slope by automatically allowing other types of controversial marriages. This is NOT TRUE!!!! Other types of marriages are outlawed for a reason. Polygamy is illegal because it detracts from the rights of the women and spreads STDs. Marrying relatives is illegal because it causes hemophilia. Marrying 4 year olds is illegal because they are not considered adults in society and because marriage is consensual. 4 year olds are not capable of making life long decisions. I'm sure you know this, so your attempt to compare this to same sex marriage is pathetic. The point is, a government is supposed to protect the rights of all of its citizens. As you can clearly see, the types of marriages listed above take away people's rights. Same sex marriage gives people rights. I'm trying to make this as clear as possible to be sure you understand.

"Yes, gay marriage does "hurt" marriage."

How in the world does same sex marriage hurt marriage????? It doesn't! How does allowing two people who truly love each other to have a life long legal committment, no matter what gender, actually hurt marriage? You don't really give any reasons except proceeding to talk about tradition:

"Why should we allow something that was considered a mental disease just a few decades ago to be endorsed and promulgated in our society?"

"It redefines it for entire generations to come and pulls away from a standard of behavior and living that has existed ALWAYS."

First of all, because homosexuality is NOT a mental 'disease'. And second, who cares if marriage has always been between men and women? Change is not always a bad thing. What is the US had decided to keep using slavery because it had existed 'always'? I know this example seems a bit extreme when compared to marriage, but basically what you're saying is that changing the status quo is always a bad thing, regardless of how morally wrong the status quo is. This is one of the HUGE problems with the issue of same sex marriage. The reason so many people are against it is not because they find the arguments logical. It's because they look down on gay people and are afraid of changing our culture and allowing them to be our equals.

"The problem is that the Gay and Lesbian community wants to argue from a "fairness" standpoint, but don't like the other side of the coin when it is applied logically. Homosexuality is not right just because a few decide to start accepting it. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Charles Manson thinks he is right......Hitler thought he was right......would you side with them as well?"

What logical arguments can you give that homosexuality is wrong? Of course they argue is from a fairness standpoint. Equality is important. Its one of the things the US is founded on. Remember, those opposing same sex marriage are just as unhappy when they see the other side of things (although I can't say I've actually heard any GOOD arguments against homosexuality). Of course homosexuality is not right just because some people accept it! Its right because gay people deserve the same rights and level of respect that we have. As for equating these views to Hitlers..... this is not about moral relativism, which is what you are trying to argue. Hitler and Charles Manson murdered people. That's morally wrong. What the heck is morally wrong with allowing same sex marriage. Its morally worng to NOT legalize it.

Please wake up and realize that gay people are people too and that they deserve the rights that we have. Allowing them to marry will not in any way affect existing marriage. Remember that even if it did come at a cost to society, governments are supposed to do what is morally right. Abolishing slavery came at a huge cost. It hurt the economy and caused a very bloody war. But does anyone look back and say that we should have left things the way they were just because people are afraid of change?

~Molly

Caymans?  I'll look them up the next time I'm there.  However, since your name appears in none of the official records it should have appeared in, I think that's pretty safe to say I'm correct.  I mean, even the title of your upcoming music album is "owned" by a band that already released it, and owns the copyrights.

Back to topic however, if the idea that two loving people somehow hurt your relationship with another person, well, than clearly you've got a messed up relationship to begin with.  Homosexual couples hurt no one, nor is it proper to compare them with, A)nonconsensual sex with minors, or B)incestual sex.  The first is outlawed because it abuses a child, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and the second is outlawed because there is a serious possibility of really bad genetic effects.

Cheers

You are a truly inspiring person. And your feelings on gay, and homosexuality are from the heart. I agree with you one-hundred percent on the topic at hand, and it is quite irritating to have to read close-minded comments such as the comparing the molesting of a four year old, and the union of two people in love no matter their gender. These absurd notions are quite proposterous and aggrivating. So my quote of the day to the close-minded people out there is "Get a life"

~Claudia

Who gives a shit......and yes aids is spread by homosexuals who like to take it in the back door, ish....no fudge on my dinger.

It only took me all of 3 seconds to figure out peter is a fraud....Link As for this topic.....Stay out of my House/Bedroom, It's none of your business!

Read the book of Leviticus and it directly states what i am saying.

Strange, I would have thought that the new testament was more important to christians than old testament. And in John 8,1-11, we have Jesus forgiving an alduterous woman. So which is more important for a christian: stoning the alduterous woman as the old Testament told or forgiving?

Getting back to the Inventor of the Internet section of this article, it would appear Jeb and Maxwell share some accuracy.

As I understand it, a guy named Licklider (American) was largely responsible for the development of the precursor hardware infrastructure (ARPANET) while Tim Berners-Lee (British) was responsible for developing the software (HTTP) which runs the WWW.

They were both pioneers, neither of whom can legitimately claim to be the sole inventors of the internet.
Additionally, there were several others involved as well.
VES

ARGH! I hate it when people use Leviticus' Laws of Purity as a reason why homosexuality is bad! Yes, I've read the Bible, so I do know what you are talking about with that argument. It says something along the lines of 'a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman'. I could go really in-depth about the Old Testament and Christianity and such, but instead I think I'll take the simpler route and look at this from a government's point of view. Remember that little thing called separation of church and state? There are other religions with views and laws about marriage. Mormons used to practice polgamy, but its now illegal. Just because Mormons think polygamy should be legal doesn't mean the government must make it legal. And so, just because SOME Christians think same sex marriage should be made illegal doesn't mean the government should make it that way.

In addition, (just to go a little more in-depth than I was originally planning to) why do you get to pick and choose which Laws of Purity we should all have to follow? Why should the government make it illegal for homosexuals to marry but have no laws about things like touching the skin of dead pigs (football would be illegal) or anything else? It angers me that Christians typically don't follow these laws, and yet use the law about homosexuality to show why it is 'wrong'.

~Molly

In addition, (just to go a little more in-depth than I was originally planning to) why do you get to pick and choose which Laws of Purity we should all have to follow? Why should the government make it illegal for homosexuals to marry but have no laws about things like touching the skin of dead pigs (football would be illegal) or anything else?

He doesn't individually get to decide which laws we should all follow, though he can have an opinion and vote accordingly, just as you can. "We" (as the people, AND we as the government within the construct of a representative democracy) get to decide which laws we should all follow. It's a natural consequence that not every will be happy with that, or agree with that. That is the nature of individual diversity vs. collective well-being.

I am personally against laws that regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults. I also place less emphasis on the legal aspect of being married versus those that choose to live in a committed relationship. I'm slowing coming to the conclusion that the government should not be involved in promoting either by way of tax relief or funding.

VES

He doesn't individually get to decide which laws we should all follow, though he can have an opinion and vote accordingly, just as you can. "We" (as the people, AND we as the government within the construct of a representative democracy) get to decide which laws we should all follow. It's a natural consequence that not every will be happy with that, or agree with that. That is the nature of individual diversity vs. collective well-being.

Of course we're all allowed opinions. But why have them and fight for them if you can't justify them? People are so dogmatic; they refuse to change their life long opinions. Why do you think so many people are against same sex marriage? No matter how much logic they hear, their opinions won't change.

~Molly

Of course we're all allowed opinions. But why have them and fight for them if you can't justify them? People are so dogmatic; they refuse to change their life long opinions. Why do you think so many people are against same sex marriage? No matter how much logic they hear, their opinions won't change.

People fight for them because they have justified them in THEIR mind, not yours. People don't change their opinion based on logic sometimes because they base their opinions on religion. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying that's how it is. Once you recognize the reality of the situation, you realize you cannot use rational thinking to persuade a person disposed to irrational thinking.

VES

Why don't we just get it over with and privatize marriage? Let insurance companies grant licenses for a small fee, and provide whatever marriage benefits they like. Some companies can refuse to issue gay marriage licenses, and all upstanding moral people can reward them by signing on. And they can pay a little bit extra for the comfort of being in the club for morally superior people. Take government out of the question all together. Capitalism alone can provide the answers to all our ethical dilemmas.

Nice idea, but it doesn't quite work that way. Insurance is not the only legal right given by marriage (there are around 1400). Many of them are federal, meaning only the government can give them.

~Molly