The Blue Site

[Articles like this make it certain that Americans will not embrace their lifestyle, and we will not feel for their so called "plight."]

-They're not asking people to embrace it....they're asking people to accept it. There's a difference.

It's called tolerance. Freedom to chose.

Just leave em' alone Josh. There's no sinister homosexual agenda to turn all heterosexual men and women gay.

no one said there was. and of course they want americans to embrace it. which is why theyre trying their best to transform the thousand years old tradition of marriage.

tolerance is accepting that many dont agree with how they live and not complain about that. they can choose how to live, what to believe- same goes for those of us who disagree with what they do.

I love how tolerance is selective: I guess it only applies to those who disagree with Josh and his homophobic worldview. "They should tolerate US!" Hysterical.

lol. you proved my point. i never said i was scared...a phobia is an irrational fear. im glad to see you have joined the lobby and have a copy of the playbook!

you disagree with the lifestyle, and you find it immoral- so youre homophobic. hilarious. only people with an agenda can totally change the meaning of the word phobia and get way with it!

btw, genius...i said tolerance is about accepting that others might not agree and you cant do exactly what you did and call them homophobic because they dont share your embrace of the lifestyle! "selective"? looks like someone needs to learn how to read.

Well Josh. Unfortunately, you live in the "land of the free"..

If you insist on supressing gay's rights to marrage, and the benefits that go with it, perhaps you can put your support behind some sort of commuist party.

Freedom is obviously not for you.

lol. you always say the dumbest things. if you want to protect the sanctity of a tradition as old as marriage, youre a communist. thats just too funny.

gays not being able to marry means theyre not "free"? again, too funny.

[if you want to protect the sanctity of a tradition as old as marriage]

-No, if you want to supress the freedoms of certain people because they don't conform to your lifestyle, you're a communist.

Times change. The world changes. Traditions must ultimately change as well.

What would you say to the white guy 50 years ago who was totally against the change in times, and didn't want to allow blacks to vote, go to white school, or pretty much have rights? ...because this is essentially the same thing, only instead of skin color, it's sexual preference.

surpess the freedoms? lay off the drugs, buddy. marriage isnt a right to anyone who wants to marry anyone else. its not a freedom at all.

a small group can just change a tradition as old as time, just because? even if the majority demand we keep the institution unchanged? youll surely deny it, but allowing anyone to marry anyone breaks down the institution and completely ruins the sacred nature of it.

according to you- the majority of the american public is communist. you just make me laugh because you always try to claim im so out there, then you say stuff like this. hello americans- you are all communist- love 'hoodlum.' nice.

"a small group can just change a tradition as old as time"

- Actually, marriage as we know it: between any man and woman regardless of their race, has only existed for less than 40 years. Prior to that, interracial marriages were banned in many states. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society.

"even if the majority demand we keep the institution unchanged"

-Mass opinion should not dictate judicial decisions. In 1958 -- the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted -- opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages. Does that mean interracial marriages should have been banned?

get a freaking life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[surpess the freedoms? lay off the drugs, buddy. marriage isnt a right to anyone who wants to marry anyone else. its not a freedom at all.]

It is as much a freedom in the civilized world as going to the store and buying a loaf of bread. In many middle-eastern and Asian nations, marriage is not a freedom, but a right granted by parents. And sometimes, those married don't even know each other. And in all cases, the state law will not come between these traditions.

You have the right to go get married tomorrow if you want.

[lay off the drugs]

As required of me through the laws of the Canadian Armed Forces, I do not take any un-prescribed drugs.

[a small group can just change a tradition as old as time, just because?]

It's called evolution. The US constitution has been modified over time to suite modern morals and freedoms.

[youll surely deny it, but allowing anyone to marry anyone breaks down the institution and completely ruins the sacred nature of it.]

-In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. This amendment did not pass.

So I ask you. If Tom and Ted go get married, is your life threatened somehow? Is your way of life diminished? If you somehow in the future manage to marry, does your marriage mean less because Ted and Tom can get married too?

The past has shown that traditions (no matter how old) can be modified to become more tolerant of societies change. Gays getting married doesn't mean your vows to your wife somehow mean less than if gay marriage was illegal. It's just a sign of the times.

I cant even reply anymore...its just too laughable. "lowdown" claims marriage in its current form has been around for only about 40 yrs which is insanity. and i believe that even a 6 yr old knows thats not anywhere close to accurate. some people will always be racist and not want blacks to marry whites or whites to marry hispanics, etc. you cannot compare that issue to man man -woman woman. Marriage has been the bond between a man and a woman for thousands of yrs. youre a few thousand plus 960 yrs off. but youre quite aware of that.

as for "hood" he says most of america is communist for wanting to protect marriage as it is...and that youre intolerant if you dont support marriage between any two/three/four people...man man man woman, woman man woman woman, man man man man, woman woman woman woman, and on and on...

so americans and many outside of the US- you are intolerant communists. glad that "hood" doesnt live here, because hed have a lot of angry people wanting to give him a piece of their mind.

"lowdown claims marriage in its current form has been around for only about 40 yrs which is insanity"

- If you define it's current form as being between any man and woman, no matter what their race is, then that is a simple fact. All I can say is that calling a fact "insanity" will do nothing to help your argument. It was only after Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that the supreme court struck down all interracial marriage bans.

Source 1: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Source 2: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/07/25/p15s1.htm

Source 3: http://www.africana.com/research/blackfacts/bl_fact_36.asp

Source 4: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17988

"and i believe that even a 6 yr old knows thats not anywhere close to accurate"

- That six year old's opinion would certainly contradict all the evidence I've provided for you.

"some people will always be racist and not want blacks to marry whites or whites to marry hispanics"

- It was not "some people", it was THE LAW.

"Marriage has been the bond between a man and a woman for thousands of yrs. youre a few thousand plus 960 "

- It's been a bond between a WHITE woman and WHITE man (or a black man and black woman) for quite awhile.

"and that youre intolerant if you dont support marriage between any two/three/four people"

- Actually, you don't have to support anything. You're entitled to your own personal beliefs (ie. You don't have to marry a man if you don't want to, and you don't have to attend or fund a gay marriage either). But if you want to rob people of the right to make their own choices concerning their own lives than yes, THAT is intolerant.

- Hoodlum and I have both done a good job of proving to you that marriage has in fact evolved from it's original conception. What evidence do you have that would suggest a further evolution would have any sort of negative impact on society?

He has none. That's why he keeps repeating "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman" whenever we bring up such evidence.

I'm glad we keep you laughing Josh. It always makes me warm and fuzzy inside knowing I brought a smile to someones face.

lol. one more reply, since you both are clueless. there were certain laws on the subject in the US in the 20th century, so that must be the end of that. wait, no, there are other nations on earth and there has been marriage of all typed throughout the world between men and women of all races and creeds. for THOUSANDS of yrs. so, you make yourself look a bit silly when you bring up so idiots in the mid 1900's! there were yrs before then- heck, there were entire centuries and more before that...and, there are other places. its a big planet. you are aware of these facts, right?

so, your "evidence" that marriage as it is now is only 40 yrs old is a minority of racists in 1900 america? wow. that might be dumber than 'hoodlum' saying that people who are against gay marriage are intolerant communists.

Oh Josh. You're right! It's the homosexual alliance out to destroy the heterosexuals with their sinister agenda!

They all meet and sit around a round table and plot the destruction of heterosexuality as we know it!

They blanket their true agenda with a fight for "equal rights"..

How can anyone not see their "plight" for equal rights is really a front for the total anilhalation of heterosexual individuals!

Josh! Something has to be done!!!

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!!!

"there were certain laws on the subject in the US in the 20th century, so that must be the end of that."

- The laws regarding marriage in the U.S. have changed within the last 40 years. They changed more before that. Marriage in the U.S. is an evolving institution. That is a fact you have yet to refute.

"wait, no, there are other nations on earth and there has been marriage of all typed throughout the world between men and women of all races and creeds. for THOUSANDS of yrs."

- Marriage is considered an evolving instituion in other parts of the world aswell. It hasn't stayed the same within the last "thousand years" like you make it seem:

"Different cultures in different times have practiced many forms of marriage. The ancient Hebrews, for instance, practiced polygamy — a form of marriage once widespread among cultures worldwide. Until the 19th century, some Native American cultures allowed two men to essentially marry, provided one underwent a ritual that resulted in his being considered a crossed-gender or mixed-gender person."

(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html)

"you make yourself look a bit silly when you bring up so idiots in the mid 1900's"

- I brought up the LAW in some states before 1967.

"there were yrs before then- heck, there were entire centuries and more before that...and, there are other places"

- And the idea of marriage changed during those centuries in those "other places". What's your point?

"so, your "evidence" that marriage as it is now is only 40 yrs old is a minority of racists in 1900 america"

- No, that's not my evidence.

So Josh, can you provide ANY evidence that would suggest that gay marriage would have ANY negative effect, in any shape or form, on society? If you can't, then why rob people of the right to do something that hurts absolutely nobody?

I thought we were past this, Josh, but I guess I was wrong...

Seems like yall are arguing two different aspects of the gay marraige issue. Lowdown and Hood are arguing for the LEGALITY of gay marraige and Josh is arguing for the MORALITY of it. Just to throw a quick fact into the discussion: Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. This comes from a study by NARTH in Sweden.

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

Now, one could argue(though I'm not sure if I agree or not) that with a much higher divorce rate, you now have more children in single parent homes. Single parent homes(according to numerous studies) lead to higher rates of criminal behavior. So does this mean that gay marraige will lead to higher crime rates? I have no idea, especially since gay couples obviously cant reproduce and have to get children through adoption. But it's interesting.