Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rho...

Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island

There are 524 comments on the New York Daily News story from Jan 15, 2013, titled Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island. In it, New York Daily News reports that:

Supporters of same-sex marriage rights plan to assemble at the Rhode Island Statehouse to urge lawmakers to make the smallest state the 10th to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed - and the last to do so in New England.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New York Daily News.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#266 Jan 18, 2013
Tony C wrote:
Why would that bother you so much?
Why do you need it so much?
Marry is a word. It means to join. It is descriptive. You can marry ingredients in a recipe. You can marry bottles of liquor (although that's illegal in a bar or restaurant.)
When two people join together, they are married. There is no point making up a new word when the action is the same.
Not quite.....different joining....different results.
The only reason to make a new word is if you want to consider the other people less than you.
Not quite sure your point on that?
It's the colored drinking fountain all over again.
Huh? Seriously? That's your comparison? Are there "gay only" water fountains?
You're not better than we are. Your marriages are not superior to ours, and they are no more important to society than ours.
Sounds like an inferiority complex. Its not an issue of "superiority", Tony, rather different design different function.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#267 Jan 18, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
This was a very revealing post IMO.
This dwelling on "the ideal marriage" and so forth. Really eye-opening.
QUOTE: "Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women."
What is all this about "the ideal marriage?" Why does there have to be an "ideal" marriage? IMO an ideal (or at least successful) marriage is one that does not end in divorce and is generally happy and mutually respectful, regardless of the sex of the individuals. What is ideal for one person is not ideal for the next. There is no "one size fits all." If a woman does not ever want children, then her ideal marriage would not involve children. Other people are devastated without children.
Marriage is most definitely not a way for "boys to become men" IMO. That's a bizarre notion to me. So, unmarried men are not men? I think you'd better become "a man" before you get married, or you are no good to your partner, male or female. Taking care of a woman (or any spouse) does not make you "a man."
QUOTE: "It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union."
Again with the "ideal." How many people follow "ideals?" How many people have the same "ideals?" Who cares what is the "ideal?" It would be ideal to be born a genius, but most of us aren't. That doesn't mean those who aren't are worthless. I don't get the hang up with "ideals."
To take that to its logical conclusion - you honestly believe simple recognition of same sex marriages (which will exist anyway) will change the perspective of heterosexuals such that they won't strive for an ideal marriage? Sorry, look at Massachusetts. Didn't happen. Put your fears to rest.
This is not an ideal world. People are born all different ways and MUST have the same opportunities to thrive and overcome whatever hand they are dealt - be it infertility, handicap, or homosexuality (and no I'm not calling that a handicap) and live their best life.(continued.)
All jokes aside...thanks for that response, appreciate the sincerity. I'll respond later, too hard to do on a phone. The author of that piece is, gay, Catholic, and a woman, by the name if Eve Tush net.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#268 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Why do you need it so much?"
That should be obvious. For the exact same reasons you do.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#269 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite.....different joining....different results.
Yet the same word is used whether you are marrying ingredients, alcohol, or people.

Are you offended by recipes that call for marrying ingredients? Are you consistent?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#270 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Not quite.....different joining....different results.
...
Gay folks and straight folks marry for all but one of the same reasons, and the results (and blessings, and challenges) of marriage are the same for both sets of couples.

It's not really as different joining, and the results aren't different, either.

That's the point.

And as to that ONE reason, you would first need to show that every straight couple marries for only that reason, and show why, if every straight couple is not bound by that reason, that ALL gay couples should be forbidden legal recognition based on it.

Can you do that?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#271 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Huh? Seriously? That's your comparison? Are there "gay only" water fountains?
......
No. Gay people in many states are not allowed to "drink from fountains" at all.

You want to establish "gay only" unions? Doesn't that, by definition, like "black only" fountains, made THEM lesser?

Sorry, not acceptable.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#272 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite sure your point on that?
<quoted text>
Huh? Seriously? That's your comparison? Are there "gay only" water fountains?
<quoted text>
Sounds like an inferiority complex. Its not an issue of "superiority", Tony, rather different design different function.
I'm surprised by your reaction to the water fountains example. You really can't make that connection without it being spelled out for you?

What was the intention of the colored drinking fountains? They weren't different fountains. They had the same function. They had the same water. White people just didn't want black people drinking from their fountains. They thought they were better. They thought it would ruin their experience if black people drank from their water fountains.

This is where we got the whole concept that "separate but equal" is not, in fact, equal. Why didn't you learn that?

This situation is directly analagous. You want to create a separate institution that is exactly the same as marriage but called something else so as not to "spoil" yours. It's hysterical.

My suggesting that you have a superiority complex does not mean I have an inferiority complex. Having a complex is a psychological phenomenon. We are outright told our marriages are inferior, and have to fight to level the playing field. That's not having a complex. That's having a fight.

It is not different design, different function.

Any marriage has same potential, gay or straight. They may or may not raise children. They may or may not succeed. It is only different in your brain.

You show a great weakness in feeling so threatened by simple legal recognition of what already exists. Your kids are going to see examples of partnered gay men and women with children in their lifetime. Whether or not they are legally recognized, that example will be there. If it is confusing to them, then you have not raised them well. If it is confusing to you, then you have issues.

The average person "gets it" when properly explained to them. Why don't you? Why are you so hung up on this? To the point you spend all this time arguing with gay people on a chat board about their lives?

This is not about you or your family. If you let other marriages affect yours or your kids then you are deficient in some way. You should see a marriage counselor today if your marriage is so precariously balanced that it couldn't handle something so harmless as legal recognition of what already exists.

I think you have a lot more to work on yourself, and figure out why you think this way, and why you are so scared.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#273 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That should be obvious. For the exact same reasons you do.
Hmmmmmm.....to create new life that is the fruit of my conjugal union with my wife....to provide the children my wife and I have created with a married mother and father, living together in a stable marriage and home environment? To demonstrate to our daughters how a husband should treat his wife?

For those reasons?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#274 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm.....to create new life that is the fruit of my conjugal union with my wife....to provide the children my wife and I have created with a married mother and father, living together in a stable marriage and home environment? To demonstrate to our daughters how a husband should treat his wife?
For those reasons?
Pretty much.

I'll dispute your notion that the reason people want to marry someone else is specifically to have children. People can have children any old time without getting married. You don't look for good breeding capacity in your partner. Babies are part of the plan for most people, but many heterosexuals get married without any intention or ability to procreate.

Society as a whole needs to procreate. Not every person does or ever will.

If you met a woman and fell in love, and then found out she could not have children, wouldn't you still marry her?

You can have all the plans and intentions you want, and then life happens. Your "ideal" may have been to have babies with your wife, but if you can't, then you go by other means. Does that make you less of a family, less of a man, less married, less valuable to society? Of course not. Everyone has a different role. It is easily as valuable to society to raise someone else's child as it is to make one, if not more so.

So other than that...

Two parents in a stable loving environment? check.
Demonstrating how married people should treat each other? check.

See how easy that is?

Look, when I was a kid, I thought I was going to grow up and have a wife and kids, too. I'd make a great Dad, I know how to take care of babies, and kids always liked me.

And then life happens. I started to grow up, realized I was gay - then what? Am I supposed to say, "Oh well, no life for me." Some people do, and then they kill themselves.

Normal human psychological behavior is to seek stability. When you are reeling from that kind of realization, you need to find steady ground. You need to feel that everything is OK. Everything you've ever been told about your life plan is out of the question. Or maybe...

OK so I won't have the whole marriage to a woman, house, kids, dog, picket fence, etc.

I'll still have love. I can still find someone to be with for the rest of my life. If we want to raise kids, we can raise kids. House, dog, fence - those are easy. OK, I can do this. No suicide necessary. It's just not quite what I expected, but just as fulfilling, just as relevant to society (not that anybody I know bases their life on what they contribute to society) and just as meaningful.

And that's how it went. I met someone I love and trust, and plan to be with and share life with until one of us dies. And to make that official, we got married. And that's not anyone else's concern, just ours, and those who were invited.

Not yours.

Unless you want my nose in your marriage, leave mine alone.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#275 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to use this piss poor example to say that having children with help is somehow not only different for same sex couples vs opposite sex couples, but that those children/that family should be treated differently under the law (based on your prejudices - because you approve of the opposite sex couples but not the same sex couple.)
It is different. An opposite sex couple using help to conceive a child doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual, it only shows that individual couple cannot conceive in that manner. A SSC is inherently infertile.
I'm telling you the DIFFERENCE in how they got to that state or the percentage of either does not constitute a DIFFERENCE in how they must be treated under the law.
You seem to be implying that the presence of children in a ss relationship automatically confers on the relationship "marital status". Children are present in a variety of adult relationship situation, and yet they are not automatically granted marital status on that factor.
You can't seem to grasp that.
Back at ya
The married gay couple will still exist and have children. Their children are entitled to the same protections as children of straight couples.
Are the children entitled to their mother AND father? It's not a perfect world, and yes some kids grow up without both mom and dad, some do well, others not. They grow up in all sorts of families. By your reasoning, only children of coupled relationships deserve to be treated the same under law. What of children being raised in polygamous families? By their father and uncle? Mother and Grandmother? Etc.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#276 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
[QUOTE]
I'll dispute your notion that the reason people want to marry someone else is specifically to have children. People can have children any old time without getting married. You don't look for good breeding capacity in your partner. Babies are part of the plan for most people, but many heterosexuals get married without any intention or ability to procreate.
Individual couples marry for all sorts of reason, and I agree not all do so to procreate, or intend to procreate, but sex happens, babies are conceived. "Two go to bed, but three get up". If every pregnancy was planned, very few of us would be here.
Society as a whole needs to procreate. Not every person does or ever will.
Agreed
If you met a woman and fell in love, and then found out she could not have children, wouldn't you still marry her?
You can have all the plans and intentions you want, and then life happens. Your "ideal" may have been to have babies with your wife, but if you can't, then you go by other means. Does that make you less of a family, less of a man, less married, less valuable to society? Of course not. Everyone has a different role. It is easily as valuable to society to raise someone else's child as it is to make one, if not more so.
Hmmmmm.....met a woman and fell in love.....does my wife find out? I just kidding. Valid question though. I've been married...pretty much since birth...ok maybe not that long. I always pictured myself married with kids, and did marry in my 20s. In that scenario you posed, I would have to make a choice.
So other than that...
Two parents in a stable loving environment? check.
Demonstrating how married people should treat each other? check.See how easy that is?
Gender is just as important to you, as it is to me, my children, other children. Remember the old expression, "A woman wants to marry a man like dear dad"? My oldest daughter is not looking to her mother to see how a husband treats his wife, but to me. She has expressed this to me, her boyfriend has qualities, like me. Your relationship is based on gender as is mine. I don't think you're going to argue that the dynamics of same sex male relationship/marriage are the same as one of husband and wife.
Look, when I was a kid, I thought I was going to grow up and have a wife and kids, too. I'd make a great Dad, I know how to take care of babies, and kids always liked me. And then life happens. I started to grow up, realized I was gay - then what? Am I supposed to say, "Oh well, no life for me." Some people do, and then they kill themselves.Normal human psychological behavior is to seek stability. When you are reeling from that kind of realization, you need to find steady ground. You need to feel that everything is OK. Everything you've ever been told about your life plan is out of the question. Or maybe...
.....there's Plan B?
OK so I won't have the whole marriage to a woman, house, kids, dog, picket fence, etc.
I'll still have love. I can still find someone to be with for the rest of my life. If we want to raise kids, we can raise kids. House, dog, fence - those are easy. OK, I can do this. No suicide necessary. It's just not quite what I expected, but just as fulfilling, just as relevant to society (not that anybody I know bases their life on what they contribute to society) and just as meaningful.
Fair enough
And that's how it went. I met someone I love and trust, and plan to be with and share life with until one of us dies. And to make that official, we got married. And that's not anyone else's concern, just ours, and those who were invited.Unless you want my nose in your marriage, leave mine alone.
Okay, if don't want others in "your marriage", why ask the state in? You can't have it both ways. If anyone wants state recognition of their intimate personal relationship, they have to accept state regulation of it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#277 Jan 19, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay folks and straight folks marry for all but one of the same reasons, and the results (and blessings, and challenges) of marriage are the same for both sets of couples.
It's not really as different joining, and the results aren't different, either.
It's that reason, that is the fundamental difference. It the one of the main reasons, if not the reason, why throughout human societal history, marriage has been, with the exception of few scattered examples recognized ss unions, a male female relationship. If human reproduction was not sexual,would it matte who married who?
And as to that ONE reason, you would first need to show that every straight couple marries for only that reason, and show why, if every straight couple is not bound by that reason, that ALL gay couples should be forbidden legal recognition based on it.
Can you do that?

First, every OPPOSITE SEX couple is not bound by that, nor needs to be, in order for society to recognize marriage is orientated around the procreative aspect of the male female physical sexual union. Second, use of "straight" or "gay" do describe couples is inaccurate because there are mixed orientation opposite sex couples out there. Lastly, can you show that no openly gay, or self labeled gay person is incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, or doing so? Does any state require a "statement of orientation" prior to the issuance of a marriage license, and then only allow one to marry the gender that corresponds to statement?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#278 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It is different. An opposite sex couple using help to conceive a child doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual, it only shows that individual couple cannot conceive in that manner. A SSC is inherently infertile.
<quoted text>
You seem to be implying that the presence of children in a ss relationship automatically confers on the relationship "marital status". Children are present in a variety of adult relationship situation, and yet they are not automatically granted marital status on that factor.
<quoted text>
Back at ya
<quoted text>
Are the children entitled to their mother AND father? It's not a perfect world, and yes some kids grow up without both mom and dad, some do well, others not. They grow up in all sorts of families. By your reasoning, only children of coupled relationships deserve to be treated the same under law. What of children being raised in polygamous families? By their father and uncle? Mother and Grandmother? Etc.
Sorry, it's not different. Infertile heterosexuals are also "inherently" infertile. So are senior citizens who get married. So are people who opt to not have children.

We don't treat any of those differently. Therefore there is no basis to treat homosexuals differently.

You are so hung up on this.

As I said to the poster you quoted, it doesn't matter HOW the children come to be in that family. The end result is the same: the children are there, and entitled to the same protections under the law.

No child is entitled to both a mother and a father. A very large number do not have both.

It is not illegal for single people of any orientation to adopt. End of argument.

Your bias against gay couples based on procreation is irrational.

Your notion that a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple who each adopt children are somehow different to society is irrational and obviously false.

You can keep repeating it over and over, but it is still irrational on your part. It is only based on your own prejudices, because those two families will have exactly the same potential impact on society. You either refuse marriage to both, or neither.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#279 Jan 19, 2013
Can anyone give a reason for not having same sex marriage being legal???????? OTHER THEN RELIGION OR HATE OR BIGOTRY...Because none of those belong in law.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#280 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Individual couples marry for all sorts of reason, and I agree not all do so to procreate, or intend to procreate, but sex happens, babies are conceived. "Two go to bed, but three get up". If every pregnancy was planned, very few of us would be here.
<quoted text>
Agreed
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm.....met a woman and fell in love.....does my wife find out? I just kidding. Valid question though. I've been married...pretty much since birth...ok maybe not that long. I always pictured myself married with kids, and did marry in my 20s. In that scenario you posed, I would have to make a choice.
<quoted text>
Gender is just as important to you, as it is to me, my children, other children. Remember the old expression, "A woman wants to marry a man like dear dad"? My oldest daughter is not looking to her mother to see how a husband treats his wife, but to me. She has expressed this to me, her boyfriend has qualities, like me. Your relationship is based on gender as is mine. I don't think you're going to argue that the dynamics of same sex male relationship/marriage are the same as one of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
.....there's Plan B?
<quoted text>
Fair enough
<quoted text>
Okay, if don't want others in "your marriage", why ask the state in? You can't have it both ways. If anyone wants state recognition of their intimate personal relationship, they have to accept state regulation of it.
Your explanation of unplanned pregnancies did not diminish my argument. There are also many unplanned pregnancies outside of marriage. Are single people who get knocked up automatically married?

I always pictured myself married with kids, too. Until I realized that couldn't happen. There was a potentially dangerous in-between time (basically high school) where I thought of other options...become a priest...marry a female friend (thank God I didn't make that mistake - how awful it must be for a woman to unknowingly marry a gay man - how disrespectful and harmful that is to her and what usery it is.)

I, all alone, as a child, had the presence of mind to come through all that - without being a drug addict or a problem child - with my faith intact - and to hold out until I found a relationship I felt was comparable to my Grandparents on my mom's side.

Interesting. I did not realize I was going to go there when I started typing that paragraph. But it is a clear relation to your point about "examples." The fact that I did not marry a woman did not matter. What mattered is I was looking for the dynamic I saw between the two people I respected most in the world - the love, the respect, the putting up with each others' little foibles, the fidelity, safety, longevity, and on and on.

I wasn't in any way confused or deterred because they were man and wife. How silly would that be? Do you think I could only copy my Grandfather and therefore not know how to treat "a man?" Or do you think I would necessarily have to mimic my Grandmother to do the same?

Don't forget - both men are gay men. We are not necessarily the same in the head as straight men. We both don't like to watch football. We both do like to watch The Golden Girls reruns. Yet, there are plenty of gay men (and straight women) who like to watch football.

People vary, and opposites still attract. He cooks better than I do. I clean better than he does. Male-female sterotypes need not apply, nor should they in heterosexual marriages.

Kids aren't stupid or as simple as you paint them. You really think if a boy grows up in a same-sex household, he won't be able to figure out how to treat a woman? Seriously?

I'd be more concerned about a boy growing up in a household with an overly macho (typically weak IMO) Dad, who directly teaches him to be the same. That's a handicap right there IMO.

What straight kids in our house would see as an example is a respectful, healthy marriage.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#281 Jan 19, 2013
hope this does't post twice...
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Individual couples marry for all sorts of reason, and I agree not all do so to procreate, or intend to procreate, but sex happens, babies are conceived. "Two go to bed, but three get up". If every pregnancy was planned, very few of us would be here.
<quoted text>
Agreed
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm.....met a woman and fell in love.....does my wife find out? I just kidding. Valid question though. I've been married...pretty much since birth...ok maybe not that long. I always pictured myself married with kids, and did marry in my 20s. In that scenario you posed, I would have to make a choice.
<quoted text>
Gender is just as important to you, as it is to me, my children, other children. Remember the old expression, "A woman wants to marry a man like dear dad"? My oldest daughter is not looking to her mother to see how a husband treats his wife, but to me. She has expressed this to me, her boyfriend has qualities, like me. Your relationship is based on gender as is mine. I don't think you're going to argue that the dynamics of same sex male relationship/marriage are the same as one of husband and wife.
Your explanation of unplanned pregnancies did not diminish my argument. There are also many unplanned pregnancies outside of marriage. Are single people who get knocked up automatically married?

I always pictured myself married with kids, too. Until I realized that couldn't happen. There was a potentially dangerous in-between time (basically high school) where I thought of other options...become a priest...marry a female friend (thank God I didn't make that mistake - how awful it must be for a woman to unknowingly marry a gay man - how disrespectful and harmful that is to her and what usery it is.)

I, all alone, as a child, had the presence of mind to come through all that - without being a drug addict or a problem child - with my faith intact - and to hold out until I found a relationship I felt was comparable to my Grandparents on my mom's side.

Interesting. I did not realize I was going to go there when I started typing that paragraph. But it is a clear relation to your point about "examples." The fact that I did not marry a woman did not matter. What mattered is I was looking for the dynamic I saw between the two people I respected most in the world - the love, the respect, the putting up with each others' little foibles, the fidelity, safety, longevity, and on and on.

I wasn't in any way confused or deterred because they were man and wife. How silly would that be? Do you think I could only copy my Grandfather and therefore not know how to treat "a man?" Or do you think I would necessarily have to mimic my Grandmother to do the same?

Don't forget - both men are gay men. We are not necessarily the same in the head as straight men. We both don't like to watch football. We both do like to watch The Golden Girls reruns. Yet, there are plenty of gay men (and straight women) who like to watch football.

People vary, and opposites still attract. He cooks better than I do. I clean better than he does. Male-female sterotypes need not apply, nor should they in heterosexual marriages.

Kids aren't stupid or as simple as you paint them. You really think if a boy grows up in a same-sex household, he won't be able to figure out how to treat a woman? Seriously?

I'd be more concerned about a boy growing up in a household with an overly macho (typically weak IMO) Dad, who directly teaches him to be the same. That's a handicap right there IMO.

What straight kids in our house would see as an example is a respectful, healthy marriage.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#282 Jan 19, 2013
Quote: "Okay, if don't want others in "your marriage", why ask the state in? You can't have it both ways. If anyone wants state recognition of their intimate personal relationship, they have to accept state regulation of it."

This is a question that makes me want to call you names again LOL.

Legal recognition of our marriage IS state regulation of it. What in the world was your point?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#283 Jan 19, 2013
whoops.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#284 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
marriage is orientated around the procreative aspect of the male female physical sexual union. Second, use of "straight" or "gay" do describe couples is inaccurate because there are mixed orientation opposite sex couples out there. Lastly, can you show that no openly gay, or self labeled gay person is incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, or doing so? Does any state require a "statement of orientation" prior to the issuance of a marriage license, and then only allow one to marry the gender that corresponds to statement?
First sentence - that's your interpretation.
There are very few mixed orientation couples out there, and it is morally wrong to marry someone of a different orientation without them being made aware of it.

Gay men and lesbians marrying each other or gay men marrying straight women as a result of "reparative therapy" is a fraud and should be treated as any person trying to marry an American for citizenship.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#285 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm surprised by your reaction to the water fountains example. You really can't make that connection without it being spelled out for you?
What was the intention of the colored drinking fountains? They weren't different fountains. They had the same function. They had the same water. White people just didn't want black people drinking from their fountains. They thought they were better. They thought it would ruin their experience if black people drank from their water fountains.
This is where we got the whole concept that "separate but equal" is not, in fact, equal. Why didn't you learn that?
This situation is directly analagous. You want to create a separate institution that is exactly the same as marriage but called something else so as not to "spoil" yours. It's hysterical.
That analogy doesn't make sense. If you want to enter the institution of marriage as everybody else does, then do it the same way. Ya can't argue I like the institution of marriage except for that whole "husband and wife" part? I like everything about the Sons of Italy, except that Italian descent requirement.
My suggesting that you have a superiority complex does not mean I have an inferiority complex. Having a complex is a psychological phenomenon. We are outright told our marriages are inferior, and have to fight to level the playing field. That's not having a complex. That's having a fight.
It is not different design, different function.
Different function. I'm here, you're here, virtually every person in the U.S. of A is here because a man and a woman had sex, aka, coital sexual intercourse. Even gay people know this. There were gay folks marching in France during the recent demonstrations against gay marriage. No they weren't all self delusional either. They recognized that marriage is about children, who have a right to a mama and papa. The French who very tolerant, and have legally recognized ss unions, apparently know, the difference.
Any marriage has same potential, gay or straight. They may or may not raise children. They may or may not succeed. It is only different in your brain.
What form of birth control do you, or any other SSC use?
You show a great weakness in feeling so threatened by simple legal recognition of what already exists. Your kids are going to see examples of partnered gay men and women with children in their lifetime. Whether or not they are legally recognized, that example will be there. If it is confusing to them, then you have not raised them well. If it is confusing to you, then you have issues.
Actually they already have, My wife and I were friends with a lesbian couple, several years back. We socialized, they came to the house for parties, I worked with one of the women. When she was considering motherhood a few years back, I was in the running to be the "baby's daddy". The missus had no problem with it, even if it meant, as I said tongue in cheek, it had to be done the old fashioned way. She, my friend, and I had had a number of discussions on the importance of fathers in their children's lives. At the time the issue was first raised, she had not fully come out yet. It really wasn't a big secret, most suspected, and she and another woman shared a house. Even though she had been involved with men, and stated "she wanted a sausage once in a while" , no major disclosure of her orientation.

The bottom line is I don't think marriage should be legally redefined, nor divorce laws made "no fault", something some states are starting to rethink, it should be orientated around the next generation, who should be told, and have reinforced by society and the state, that marriage is ultimately about them, their Mom AND Dad, and their welfare.....the best way to do that is through a strong marriage culture of husband and wife.

.....to be continued.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Warwick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ri traffic tribunal Sun RI DEM DONT EXPEC... 1
RI Traffic Tribunal Corrupt May 30 corruption 1
RI Traffic Tribunal May 30 corruption 1
Review: Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery - Martin T... (Nov '09) May 28 Lori A 19
Open Letter To The Most Disgracefull Mr Alan Go... May 26 victim of alan go... 1
RI Traffic Tribunal Out Of Order al goulart,mik... May 23 ri dem buban ASS ... 2
Warwick man arrested for attempted rape (Mar '13) May 17 rickr 6
More from around the web

West Warwick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]