Gay Marriage

[Busyman]

you gave no answer to this
all you answered was

I don't understand the question.

What "electronic signals"?

We are not robots.

We have higher brain functions than animals.

[vidcc]

I don't understand the question.

What "electronic signals"?

We are not robots.

We have higher brain functions than animals.

"electronic signals" is the discription of the way the brain sends "messages" to the body....it doesn't mean we need to be plugged in and charged...how do you think it should be described?

so what if we have a "higher brain function" i take it you mean "intelligence" we are still animals...perhaps you are a mineral or vegetable.

[vidcc]

I think he may be picking the nit. Asking you to say electrical impulses. Electrical being different to electronic.

perhaps i should have quoted the whole of my original question... but i see your point...

[j2k4]

The truth is that the religious want to make a big deal over a word-

Not quite true, old buddy.

This is a most common misperception; that the "religious" are the only ones arguing against a broadening of the definition of the word marriage, or that any objection to same is rooted in religion.

Why is it beyond your ken to accept there are other reasons, based on history, logic, or possibly nothing more than a keen observation of the human social/cultural condition?

...whereas, the gays don't care what you label it, just that they get the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

I must confess, I had not noticed this to be true, and I'm sure that the least reasonable among us would agree I have been paying a modicum of attention to the issue...

[hobbes]

The point is simple:

Should homosexuals be allowed to engage in a legal union that grants the same rights as it does to heterosexual couples.

That is the ONLY issue to me.

The quarrel over the word "marraige" is an attempt to obfuscate the real issue. People oppose gay couples because of their religious beliefs. This holds no weight Constitutionally and, therefore, in order to confuse matters, they start fussing about a word.

It is easy to see through the obstructionist straw horse to the true intent.

If gays are given an equal union, but still insist upon the term "marraige", I will review situation. But according to some religions, the gender of the participants is not relevant, but their commitment under their God concept is. Just because Christian religion has it's specific conditions, this should not be considered relevant legally in a country which allows religious freedom.

Do you agree that it should be the civil right of any two indivduals to be united under the law. Doesn't it seem a violation of civil rights to allow people to vote on such an issue?

And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.

In 1860, pants were: Clothing worn by men only spanning from the waist to ankles.
Now that women wear them, did we decide to call the same thing something different, or did we just expand the definition of the term.

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.

[j2k4]

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.

No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.

As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.

[Busyman]

And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.

I actually never thought of it that way.

[hobbes]

No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.

As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.

Union is fine with me, but it is in no way equal, as it stands today.

Make it equal and keep the word.

[hobbes]

I actually never thought of it that way.

Again, you are taking a concept, "That the religious are making this an issue" and finding an exception for the rule. They are the voice against "Gay Marraige" not the "society of agnostics and athiests".

Let's stick to the concepts and not quibble exceptions, but you go girl.

So, people are born gay, as the rule.
Religious people are the most vocal in opposing gay marraige, as a rule.

[Strangelove]

Ah, religion...

The English on the whole have never been spiritually minded people, thats why we invented Cricket.

To give us some notion of Eternity.