Caitlin89

He is from Wyoming. I am from New Jersey. We made mutual jumping friends while he was at West Point. Met in Zhills at the New Year's Boogie, while he was living in GA. Soon after, he moved to Texas. I remain in NJ. He's now in Baghdad. Nearly 2 years later...

LOL, and I'd say as many as 60 percent of those people got off their welfare asses and voted for the first time in their leaching lives! I have nevere seen so many at the polls , tha had no clue what they were doing, people in thier 50's voting for the first time in thier lives! They were NOT voting for a canidate, They were voting for a Brudda... On the upside, I seriously doubt those same welfare couch riders, will get up again, 3 years from now...so maybe we can get this country back on track, and stop apoligizing to the world for being the best country on the planet! Your flagrant lack of intelligence is not only frightening, but would be laughable if it wasn't so ignorant and racist. I'm embarrassed to share this great country with people like you.

"And my only argument is that i do not believe gay marriage to be a constitutional right for all." You keep repeating this. Marriage is not, in the constitution, promised to ANY person-- gay, straight, black, white, orange, yellow. It does not mention marriage. Should we make all marriages illegal, because that is what your only argument is suggesting...?

"The argument is rather or not gay marriage is a constitutional right." By saying this, you were suggesting that heterosexual marriage IS a constitutional right. Am I wrong? Please explain. So, you're advocating that we take into consideration our founding fathers' intentions as they relate to historical norms? Brilliant! Let's over turn Loving vs. Virginia, as interracial marriage was SURELY not a historical norm these founding fathers intended on!

You said you didn't 'think' it was illegal... Correct. I think US History I covers this type of thing, but who am I to judge? The argument is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right? Straight marriage is not a constitutional right. The constitution does not promise marriage to ANYBODY. You seem to be overlooking my point. Sure, words are often misunderstood. This is the constitution we are speaking of, however. Societal norms change over time; this is a fact. Therefore, the founding fathers' intentions mean nothing here.

You not only stated that interracial marriage was never illegal, but also stated that civil unions ensure equal rights. These statements ARE ignorant. I'm not sure if you're aware, but our constitution does not mention marriage. It does, however, promise equality. Additionally, our founding fathers have little to do with this argument; I'm positive we have done many things which our founding fathers would question. They, when drafting the constitution, promised equality. That is the bottom line.

Civil unions do NOT ensure equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. "If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state." "A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege." "Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples." "The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them." http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm This information may also be cited here: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html Sure... Civil unions could ensure these rights. That would involve changing the meaning of the word. You've already expressed your distaste for this in terms of 'marriage'. You've made several ignorant and incorrect statements in this thread. Do your research.

I meant if they're reasonable they'd at least question themselves privately. But you're discussing extreme posters - do I come under that category? My primary reason for being here is that I often find it educational, especially where I'm led to question, and learn more about my own beliefs. Would a bigot, or racist, or homophobe be so inclined? If I become inclined towards gay marriage, I'd be happy enough to admit it, and explain why. It's no big deal to me. This is a valid point. Again, regardless of what I think about your opinion, I admire the way in which you take criticism. While I'm not sure you've questioned your own beliefs anywhere in this thread, expecting you to do so in a 12 page online forum is also unrealistic.

Despite the fact that I disagree intently with your POV, I am impressed with your patience throughout this thread. The problem is, your viewpoint is not coherent. To speak for myself, your 'honest viewpoint' makes me angry because it's blatantly homophobic. No, it is not incoherent. He makes the point very well and I happen to agree with. It is NOT homophobic as you claim, but claiming he is, is an attempt for someone like you to try and shut the other side up. Luckily, that dishonest tactic is now seen more for what it is. Disgusting Someone like me... tolerance, what a horrible trait to possess! What's 'disgusting' is 99% of the radically racist, homophobic drivel you post in this forum.

Despite the fact that I disagree intently with your POV, I am impressed with your patience throughout this thread. The problem is, your viewpoint is not coherent. To speak for myself, your 'honest viewpoint' makes me angry because it's blatantly homophobic. Thanks. Although I take offence at being called homophobic. Is everyone against gay marriage homophobic? I've genuinely took time and effort to delve into the reasoning of why I'm against gay marriage. Would a homophobe do such a thing? I'd imagine they'd have their beliefs and have no reason to question or consider them to any extent. So, enough of the name calling. Let me rephrase: Some of the comments you have made indicate a marked level of homophobia, in my opinion. Your argument is just one which I don't understand... Homosexuality is natural, but because, in your mind it is abnormal, it is also wrong to condone it through legalizing gay marriage. It's difficult for me to comprehend. Normal is too subjective a word in arguing for equal rights, something promised in our constitution.

Well, isn't that a shame? I'm still against gay marriage. Further to that, I've identified a point where, through excessive wine consumption, I have felt it necessary to make a more coherent viewpoint. You, of all people, should appreciate that. This is my honest viewpoint. Why does it always make you so angry and wasp-ish? Why does a person with a different point of view make you so angry? It sometimes cracks me up with laughter, but that isn't my intention. Despite the fact that I disagree intently with your POV, I am impressed with your patience throughout this thread. The problem is, your viewpoint is not coherent. To speak for myself, your 'honest viewpoint' makes me angry because it's blatantly homophobic.

No. You said that you favor 'a' (which you put in italics for emphasis) civil union which provides rights to gays equal to those rights associated with marriage. That is what you said. In order for this to happen, changes would need to be made to the term 'civil union', because at this time, they areNOT equal.

Not speaking of an individual marriage: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 ''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has." Nice to hear that supporters of gay marriage also supportive of incestuous marriage though. . . "Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married." http://kickingalion.wordpress.com/scandinavia-gay-marriage-experiment/

If this brother and sister are two consenting adults, then sure. Is incest healthy (mentally) for those involved? Probably not, therefore separating it from gay marriage. Why wouldn't it be mentally 'healthy'? Where does the seperation come into it? Is two people of the same sex living in an institution of husband and wife mentally 'healthy' as you put it? It's abnormal. It weakens the institution of marriage which in itself has numerous social problems attached. Are you actually suggesting that the mental health of those in incestuous relationships is equivalent to that of homosexual relationships? This is completely asinine. I wasn't suggesting that - I was simply making a theoretical statement. Okay, so now you don't want to change the provisions under civil unions, which means you don't actually support equal rights?

If this brother and sister are two consenting adults, then sure. Is incest healthy (mentally) for those involved? Probably not, therefore separating it from gay marriage. Now, could you answer mine? You say you want A civil union which would give gays the same marriage rights as heteros... Since the civil unions in this country currently do not provide equal rights, are you suggesting the definition be changed to include 1,100+ additional rights?

So, are you saying that you want to redefine 'civil union' in order to make its rights equal with those of marriage?

You keep reiterating that a civil union provides gay men and lesbians with the same rights as marriage. This is simply untrue. Any basic amount of research will clearly state the many important differences.

I've really tried to understand your POV, but it's completely mind boggling. Your argument is clearly absurd, not to mention based completely on intolerance.

I've reread your post-drunk explanation several times. You state that homosexuality is abnormal, yet natural at the same time. This is extremely confusing. Still, you refer to reproduction here. Therefore, I'm not understanding this argument: It is okay for an infertile woman to marry a man, but not okay for two women to marry.

Maybe, because 'normal' is such a subjective term, I am misunderstanding your definition of it.

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal. I see that now. I posted before reading your latest post. Still, 'abnormal' things were 'normalized' all throughout history. Interracial marriage was abnormal in the 1950's...

It appears as though your main, if not single argument against gay marriage lies in the fact that gay marriage does not adequately foster childbearing practices. Nearly 8% of married women aged 18-44 (in the US alone) are completely infertile. This obviously does not account for the men. Are you suggesting that these people be denied marriage also?

Excuse me... Which language is 'the language' referring to? The United States has no official language. Perhaps YOU should learn Spanish, so that in 10 years, when it's spoken more frequently than English, you'll be able to effectively communicate your ignorance.

For a quick, easy read (not to mention funny)... One of Chelsea Handler's two books: Are You There Vodka, It's Me, Chelsea or My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One Night Stands

'Superfluous'... flows nicely.