I admire your courage for coming out and treating your life "Choice" in a posotive way. I've had my share of problems since coming out in my mid-teens but people like you make it much easier for people like me to feel accepted. Good luck with all your endeavors  ;)


Thank you SuperFreak.  We too, need a voice.  8)

Just a reminder to many:

If someone doesn't agree with what you believe, it doesn't make them close-minded or ignorant at all. It makes you close-minded when you can't understand why they don't agree with you. I believe many on both sides forget this aspect.

Tanya

Just a reminder to many:

If someone doesn't agree with what you believe, it doesn't make them close-minded or ignorant at all. It makes you close-minded when you can't understand why they don't agree with you. I believe many on both sides forget this aspect.

Tanya


You raised a very good point.  I understand.  I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.  :)

I'm a New Jersey resident.  As some of you may have heard about our Governor Jim McGreevey came out of the "closet[" last week.    Right now, I'm in a lesbian relationship.  My partner and I have discussed several things about our future and we were thinking about adopting a child sometime in the distant future.   I would like to know what are your thoughts regarding gay relationships, gay parenting and openly gay politicans?   :)


It is really cool that you are going through with something that gives you so much happiness and interest in the future, Cheetara.

My thoughts on gay relationships: I have no real thoughts about gay relationships in themselves but I suppose (at risk of sounding too un-PC about it) I wish some gay people would just get on with it instead of trying to drag 'other people out of the closet'. Also, a strong attachment to the homosexual stereotype annoys me as well. As indicated, these are merely my thoughts and, in no way, represent the thoughts of the Inthe00s company.  ;D

Gay parenting: If people like to adopt, that can only be a good thing.  :)

Openly gay politicians: Again, fine. They are employed to perform a professional duty to the country.

Just a reminder to many:

If someone doesn't agree with what you believe, it doesn't make them close-minded or ignorant at all. It makes you close-minded when you can't understand why they don't agree with you. I believe many on both sides forget this aspect.

Tanya


Very insightful.  :)

Gay adoption - fine with me if you are in a stable, committed relationship and can provide for the needs (physical and emotional) ofthe child.  I have a colleague who is a lesbian and has adopted a kid, who is doing very well.

Relationships - When 2 people, of whatever gender, race, religion etc, form a loving relationship I think its great.  What more is there to say?

Gay Politicians - Why should it be an issue?  What counts is honesty and positions on issues, not one's bedroom partner(s). 


Just a reminder to many:

If someone doesn't agree with what you believe, it doesn't make them close-minded or ignorant at all. It makes you close-minded when you can't understand why they don't agree with you. I believe many on both sides forget this aspect.

Tanya


I can only agree with this to an extent.  It applies to disagreements over the interpretation of facts, or religious beliefs.  For example, because the evidance is so strong, I believe that we all are decendant from 1 African woman who lived several 100 thousand years ago - African Eve.  There are those who believe that each "race" evolved sperately.  This cannot be sustained by either biology or the fossil record, so to dismiss that opinion out of hand is not closed minded.  Nor is it closed minded to dismiss those who believe that the "white race" is superior to all others.  Disagreements as to who is the better candidate, which brand of rum (or tooth paste) tastes better etc. ARE acceptable.  Reasonable people can disagree on lots of stuff, but there are people (homophobes fall into this category) who are not rational and not reasonable.

I would like to know what are your thoughts regarding gay relationships, gay parenting and openly gay politicans?   :)


I actually do not care at all.  What somebody does with their life is their own private business.  As long as they do not go around shoving it in my face, it is just fine with me.

My best friend back in LA is a gay man.  And my best friend here in Alabama is a lesbian.  But that does not matter to me.  To me, they are just Sean and Nancy.  :D

As far as a gay politician, I could not care less one way or another.  I do not vote for or against anybody because of their personal life.  However, if their primary goal is to "force through" gay rights issues I will probably not vote for them.  There are so many more important issues to me and the country at large I feel then to try and cater to a minority group.

I don't see any problem with gay couples adopting, as long as they pass all the same checks the hetero couples have to pass too, let them adopt. (I don't know if it is included, but there should be background checks, too)  There are so many children out there without homes that I think it is a sin to refuse someone the right to adopt because of their sexual orientation.

Not sure I fully understand the questions.  A politician is a politican, a parent is a parent and a relationship is a relationship.  But, here goes.

Gay relationships:  Each relationship (same with parents & politicians) is unique, so the differences are found by comparing individual relationships.  You may as well ask what I think of relationships between blondes and brunettes compared to blonde/blonde relationships and brunette/brunette relationships.  

Gay parenting:  I think all kids need good parents... that might be a single mom or dad, a mom and a dad, a grandparent or set of grandparents, two moms, two dads, two moms and a dad, two dads and a mom, a good step parent, etc.  Sadly, I also think not nearly enough kids have good parents.  You've not yet adopted a child, but you've already put more thought into parenting than a lot of the allegedly straight parents I've met, in my town, have put into parenting the children they already have.  (Every time I see one one of those "why are kids today so rude/stupid/etc. and why do their parents put up with it, I think to myself, "the answer is simple: 'What parents?'")  Just going on what little you've said, it sounds to me like you and your partner have a really good head start on being good parents.  

Gay politicians:   ...Are politicians.  The offices we elect them to are jobs.  Their private lives are irrelevent.    So long as it's consenting adult humans, I honestly don't care who any politician sleeps with or whether its inside or outside of the confines of a marriage or other committed relationship.  Straight, homosexual, bisexual, monogamous, committed but open relationship, swingers, polyamorous, orgies, hookers, political groupies, kinky, ultra kinky, vanilla,  cold and sexless -- none of my business -- just do the job we elected you to do.  Open or closeted?  Plenty of politicians are openly heterosexual or are open about having relationships with persons of the opposite gender and plenty of other politicians who are in hetero or opposite-gendered relationships prefer to keep their private lives as private as possible... I see no difference.  

The McGreevey resignation/scandal has nothing to do with his being homosexual or bisexual or that he had both a wife and a piece on the side (or maybe he and his wife shared the guy, for all I know or care)  It has to do with his illegally creating a high paying phony job for the sole purpose of "keeping" his lover on the taxpayer dime and (this is the only part that resulted in his resignation:) getting caught.  He should leave his office, today and he should be prosecuted.   I would feel exactly the same if, instead of for a lover, he'd created that high paying phony job for a relative, his wife or a boyhood friend.

That's my .02      

PS to Carlos:  What you said about disagreements -- *applauding* Very well put.  






Well said. I agree 100%




Cat

I'm a big believer in MYOB.

We have far too many self-appointed other-people's-business-minders in this country.

It's not my business if gay people want to get married or adopt children either.  By making it YOUR business, you only create more strife and do nothing for the health and well being of our society.

Cheetara...this is a great post...you are a dear...and I do agree with MaxwellSmart... which blows me away... ::)  that a little dose of m.y.o.b. is in order...I would like to see as well d.t.t.m.i.m.b.....(don't try to make it my business ;)    except  in this case of you're asking in this forum... and I commend your honesty, and caring... :)
The issue with  McGreevey...I think his ambiguity, is not (in an ideal world, which we don't live in) conducive to good leadership...only becauseof the distraction in thinking..."I am not who I have presented myself to be", and  "I'm gonna be found out"...I feel so sorry for his children, and the ribbing they will endure...When you're personal life is unstable, it would be hard to think clearly in any endeavor...(and I might add, that this is from a female perspective...maybe men can handle compartmentalizing better than women??? :)) 
As far as adopting a child...it would seem to me that it would better to wait...this world is full of temptation, and the easy way out  for gays, and heterosexuals alike...a gay couple really has to go out of their way to have a child; whereas a straigtht couple would have to go out of their way to not...nearly any culture is very hard on anything that deviates from the "norm"...in this dinky one horse town i live in for crying out loud, if your parents don't "hang at the bar", they are "kinda weird"...
I witness the angst that my cousin goes through with his lovers...I adore him...he is precious...but I am so glad that he doesn't have children, caught in the upheaval of his ever changing relationships...I have read that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but don't know about the percentage of gay  relationships???...It's just something to think about...it is hard enuff in this world with a "regular" relationship...I don't mean to put a cloud on your dream...just be patient, and you will know what to do...It sounds like you got a lot of love to give...and btw...there is always the Big Sisters that can tide you over until you decide what you need to do!  So many kids need a little loving support...good luck, and God Bless...

I am a big fan of people being able to live their life any way they want to.

I dont care who my friends sleep with as long as they are happy.

I REALLY dont care who politicians are sleeping with - whether they are happy or not hehehe.  I dont see why a politician being caught having an affair is any different to my bank manager or my next door neighbor having an affair.  Politicians are human beings (or so I have been led to believe) and humans live the same lives as the rest of us with the same temptations and occassional mistakes the rest of us can make.

I dont care whether my favourite actor is "in" or "out" of the closet as long as they do a good job up there on the big screen and entertain me.

I dont care who is allowed to give birth to or adopt children - as long as they are good parents.


but I know a nice Lesbian couple, one of whom had 2 kids before her divorce and new relationship.  I have a kid who played with their 6 year old kid a few years back.  One day she came up to me and asked, "Do you know that girl who is my Mom's friend that rides the motorcycle?  She hit me and scares me."  It sticks with me, Chee. 

I dont feel this had anything to do with the fact that your friends were gay.  Any couple could have had a "friend of mums who rides the motorcycle who hit me and scared me".  Any couple could have the nice pleasant uncle who comes to stay and molests the kids.  Anyone could have the fantastic neighbour who helps them out all the time - and meanwhile is molesting their kids.
etc etc  a million examples.  Your circle of aquaintances isnt always entirely determined by your own sexuality.

But physical and sexual abuse against children, statistics (in Australia) show that more abuse occurs in heterosexual familys than in same sex families.

Some one else asked what the stats were in "divorces" in gay couples.  In Australia the stats are that there are more long term gay relationships than straight couples.  I use to have a link to the Family Association that had these stats available but I cant find it anywhere.

60% of my circle of friends are gay and other than the two floosies ( ;) ) the rest have been in long term relationships that have outlasted all of my married straight friends - most of whom are on their second marriage by now!  Two couples among my gay friends have kids and are great parents. (in both couples one partner has legally adopted the existing children of the other partner).


Cheetara I wish you and your partner all the best and hope when you make the decision that stupid bigoted laws dont prevent you from your continued happiness.

Relationships - When 2 people, of whatever gender, race, religion etc, form a loving relationship I think its great.  What more is there to say?



Ah, 2 people who love each other.  That sir, is what I call re-defining marriage.  As you know most liberals point to when inter-racial couples couldn't marry and say the same tripe about how the majority didn't support that at the time.  Well let me explain something the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been:  ''A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.''  Allowing inter-racial marriages does not go against that definition does it?  Of course not, thats the main reason it was made legal.

So now we have liberals pretending the definition is this 2 loving people BS and I ask, whats next?  If you want to make the equal rights argument you must see that 3, 4, 5, or whatever people should marry if they love each like you say.  Its the same argument.  Who is to people if gay marriage is made legal it will stop at just that and not extend to multiple marriages.  Where do we draw the line?

Why not family members?  According to Don Carlos here the definition of marriage is 2 people who have formed a loving relationship.  So if Joe wants to marry his mother or sister, why not.  Its equal rights we are talking about, correct?  And according to the definition of marriage Don has provided, not allowing them marriage licenses would be making incest people second-class citizens.

The isn't a debate, their is a definition of marriage, always has been.  Only 25% of U.S. citizens support gay marriage according to a Fox News poll, a CBS poll has that number at 28%.  So what liberals are suggesting is we change our laws, way of life, definition of marriage just for a small minority?  Sorry doesn't work that way.  That is why we currently have 3 states that have amended thier state constitution to say marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, and after November 2nd, you can make that 14 states.  Also 38 (maybe 39) states have laws in their books saying marriage is between a man and a woman, while the other 10 states will refuse to reconize any marriage not between a man and a woman.  Massachusetts is the only state that allows it, thus pushing that state to the ranks of Canada, but thanks to Massachusetts governor, a 1913 law will make sure that only residents of that states (and no one who doesn't) can have a gay marriage there.  Plus DOMA will protect the other 49 states from Massachusett's mistake.  Massachusetts will probably re-ban gay marriages and allow civil unions and all 4,000 gay marriages done in San Francisco by mayor Gavin Newsom are null and void (sorry Rosie.)

So now we have liberals pretending the definition is this 2 loving people BS and I ask, whats next?  If you want to make the equal rights argument you must see that 3, 4, 5, or whatever people should marry if they love each like you say.  Its the same argument.  Who is to people if gay marriage is made legal it will stop at just that and not extend to multiple marriages.  Where do we draw the line?

Why not family members?  According to Don Carlos here the definition of marriage is 2 people who have formed a loving relationship.  So if Joe wants to marry his mother or sister, why not.  Its equal rights we are talking about, correct?  And according to the definition of marriage Don has provided, not allowing them marriage licenses would be making incest people second-class citizens.


Quite an interesting, if exaggerated view. Of course, GWBush, you are basing your argument on a general viewpoint. Me personally, I would accept Carlos's viewpoint as it is, without any connotations of family or animals involved in marriage. I admire the way you go against the grain on the board but a certain amount of common-sense is required.

I, like a lot of people here, automatically believe that 'unions' with family relations and animals is wrong. However, in your favour (I mean no offence to anyone saying this), it was only a few decades ago that homosexuality was considered wrong and 'unnatural' and liberal thinking changed the way people thought about this issue.

However, as Maxwell Smart and a lot of other people have said, sometimes 'minding our own business' is the best policy.  :)

Cheetara...this is a great post...you are a dear...and I do agree with MaxwellSmart... which blows me away... ::)  that a little dose of m.y.o.b. is in order...I would like to see as well d.t.t.m.i.m.b.....(don't try to make it my business ;)    except  in this case of you're asking in this forum... and I commend your honesty, and caring... :)
The issue with  McGreevey...I think his ambiguity, is not (in an ideal world, which we don't live in) conducive to good leadership...only becauseof the distraction in thinking..."I am not who I have presented myself to be", and  "I'm gonna be found out"...I feel so sorry for his children, and the ribbing they will endure...When you're personal life is unstable, it would be hard to think clearly in any endeavor...(and I might add, that this is from a female perspective...maybe men can handle compartmentalizing better than women??? :)) 
As far as adopting a child...it would seem to me that it would better to wait...this world is full of temptation, and the easy way out  for gays, and heterosexuals alike...a gay couple really has to go out of their way to have a child; whereas a straigtht couple would have to go out of their way to not...nearly any culture is very hard on anything that deviates from the "norm"...in this dinky one horse town i live in for crying out loud, if your parents don't "hang at the bar", they are "kinda weird"...
I witness the angst that my cousin goes through with his lovers...I adore him...he is precious...but I am so glad that he doesn't have children, caught in the upheaval of his ever changing relationships...I have read that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but don't know about the percentage of gay  relationships???...It's just something to think about...it is hard enuff in this world with a "regular" relationship...I don't mean to put a cloud on your dream...just be patient, and you will know what to do...It sounds like you got a lot of love to give...and btw...there is always the Big Sisters that can tide you over until you decide what you need to do!  So many kids need a little loving support...good luck, and God Bless...




Thank you.  I'm sorry to hear about your cousin's unfortunate relationships.  :(

Quite an interesting, if exaggerated view. Of course, GWBush, you are basing your argument on a general viewpoint. Me personally, I would accept Carlos's viewpoint as it is, without any connotations of family or animals involved in marriage. I admire the way you go against the grain on the board but a certain amount of common-sense is required.

I, like a lot of people here, automatically believe that 'unions' with family relations and animals is wrong. However, in your favour (I mean no offence to anyone saying this), it was only a few decades ago that homosexuality was considered wrong and 'unnatural' and liberal thinking changed the way people thought about this issue.

However, as Maxwell Smart and a lot of other people have said, sometimes 'minding our own business' is the best policy.  :)


Bravo Bobby! :)

Everyone here brought up some very interesting points.  We are fortunate in many ways to be able to  have these open discussions.    8)

Ah, 2 people who love each other.  That sir, is what I call re-defining marriage.  As you know most liberals point to when inter-racial couples couldn't marry and say the same tripe about how the majority didn't support that at the time.  Well let me explain something the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been:  ''A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.''  Allowing inter-racial marriages does not go against that definition does it?  Of course not, thats the main reason it was made legal.


Humanity has redefined marriage numerous times.  In the middle ages for instance two men could marry in a spiritual union...and it was called marriage.

One more thing I'd like to add...I agree that McGreevey was FORCED to resign....and I believe that he is'nt bravely coming out...he was dragged out of the closet...and I think (if reports are true) he is a crappy parent...I don't know how old his kids are, but he is (if the reports are true) not setting a very good example for them...Doesn't look to me as though he gave it very much thought at all, what this could do to his children...seems selfish...he must have been confused when reading the "How to grow children" manual...and thought he read "selfish"...when it really said "self-less"....
I also believe the scripture, that says:  "A tree is known by it's fruit"...I think it is an indication of his character flaws...
This guy (if the reports are true,)  cheated  on  wife, and his kids...took the precious little time he had to give them, and spent it.....well...whatever....is it possible to cheat and lie to your family, and not do the same with the people you are supposedly representing?

Ah, 2 people who love each other.  That sir, is what I call re-defining marriage.  As you know most liberals point to when inter-racial couples couldn't marry and say the same tripe about how the majority didn't support that at the time.  Well let me explain something the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been:  ''A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.''  Allowing inter-racial marriages does not go against that definition does it?  Of course not, thats the main reason it was made legal.

So now we have liberals pretending the definition is this 2 loving people BS and I ask, whats next?  If you want to make the equal rights argument you must see that 3, 4, 5, or whatever people should marry if they love each like you say.  Its the same argument.  Who is to people if gay marriage is made legal it will stop at just that and not extend to multiple marriages.  Where do we draw the line?

Why not family members?  According to Don Carlos here the definition of marriage is 2 people who have formed a loving relationship.  So if Joe wants to marry his mother or sister, why not.  Its equal rights we are talking about, correct?  And according to the definition of marriage Don has provided, not allowing them marriage licenses would be making incest people second-class citizens.

The isn't a debate, their is a definition of marriage, always has been.  Only 25% of U.S. citizens support gay marriage according to a Fox News poll, a CBS poll has that number at 28%.  So what liberals are suggesting is we change our laws, way of life, definition of marriage just for a small minority?  Sorry doesn't work that way.  That is why we currently have 3 states that have amended thier state constitution to say marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, and after November 2nd, you can make that 14 states.  Also 38 (maybe 39) states have laws in their books saying marriage is between a man and a woman, while the other 10 states will refuse to reconize any marriage not between a man and a woman.  Massachusetts is the only state that allows it, thus pushing that state to the ranks of Canada, but thanks to Massachusetts governor, a 1913 law will make sure that only residents of that states (and no one who doesn't) can have a gay marriage there.  Plus DOMA will protect the other 49 states from Massachusett's mistake.  Massachusetts will probably re-ban gay marriages and allow civil unions and all 4,000 gay marriages done in San Francisco by mayor Gavin Newsom are null and void (sorry Rosie.)


I reviewed my post, and can't find the word "marriage" anywhere in it, so I wonder what this barely literate, vitriolic, and homophobic post has to do with the topic. 

I would add that IMHO most homophobia is the result of the weak gender identities of the homophobs.  Does the man protesat too much?  Just a thought.

Bravo Bobby! :)


Oh . . . Cheers Cheetara. I try to look at both sides of an argument.  :)

To be really honest, I have a lot to learn as well.

Everyone here brought up some very interesting points.  We are fortunate in many ways to be able to  have these open discussions.    8)





Yes we are, Cheetara. I'm sorry that i haven't added more tot his, but everyone else has kinda covered it anyway. Just know that you have my full support and i wish you the best :)

I would add that IMHO most homophobia is the result of the weak gender identities of the homophobs. 


So here we go with labels.  Okay i'm a honophob because I don't think gay marriage should be made legal, smart move.  I guess the other 70% of americans who don't support gay marriage are also homophobs?  Liberal lying labels, watch out.

So here we go with labels.  Okay i'm a honophob because I don't think gay marriage should be made legal, smart move.  I guess the other 70% of americans who don't support gay marriage are also homophobs?  Liberal lying labels, watch out.


Now I agree with this. GWBush would be a homophobe if he hates homosexuals full-stop (especially without any reason beyond their sexuality - remember, you can hate a homosexual for other reasons  ;)).

However, I don't know why people chuck statistics around on the board. I love Vic Reeve's quote '99% of all statistics are made up on the spot'.  ;D

Now I agree with this. GWBush would be a homophobe if he hates homosexuals full-stop (especially without any reason beyond their sexuality - remember, you can hate a homosexual for other reasons  ;)).

However, I don't know why people chuck statistics around on the board. I love Vic Reeve's quote '99% of all statistics are made up on the spot'.  ;D


Thanks.  I am glad you agree with me on that statement.  The 70% came from the Fox News poll, the CBS poll had that at 68%.  You can look it up, or you can just go to www.foxnews.com/oreilly and read one of his ''Talking points'' memos where he has the official websites where these polls were done and posted.  68%-70% is such a huge majority, over the 2/3rds mark, I don't see a reason to debate an issue the American people have made their mind up on.

To be honest, it's no skin off my nose if you do marry your mom or sister -- if that's what you're into, I'd rather that you marry YOUR mom or sister and keep it there instead of marrying MY mom or sister, only to put her through the pain of finding out, later, (probably in front of a Jerry Springer audience) what you've been up to behind her back. But, back to the topic at hand...

ROFL!


The 70% came from the Fox News poll, the CBS poll had that at 68%.

er...

Don't know about working for change but I believe nothing that cBS puts out.

except when it happens to coincide with your own preconceptions?

except when it happens to coincide with your own preconceptions?


I trust polls from everyone, especially through major news organizations.  Polls are done by the people, and not slanted like the nightly puke from cBS.

Polls are not done by "the people", they are (usually) done by professionals who ask people specific questions, the answers are then interpreted in the way that suits the interpreter.  It is very easy for unscrupulous pollsters to get the results they desire (or think their customer desires)

Take this one, for example: MARGIN OF ERROR AND OTHER POLLING TRICKS

...it's a slightly easier read (if less comprehensive) than this: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls - but the latter one makes some excellent points about looking at the source data rather than simply believing somebody else's interpretation of what the poll means.

Polls are not done by "the people", they are (usually) done by professionals who ask people specific questions, the answers are then interpreted in the way that suits the interpreter.  It is very easy for unscrupulous pollsters to get the results they desire (or think their customer desires)



Who answers the polls?

And please don't tell me cBS likes 68% of the american people being against gay marriage in their poll, cBS was the news organization cheering on the illegal gay marriages in San Francisco, California by mayor Gavin Newsom, and it was cBS who booed the decision to void the nearly 4,000 illegal marriage licenses issued in San Francisco that violated California state law Penial code 115.

The same people who tell me all the polls showing Kerry ahead by 1 or 2 points are fine, but the same polls showing people who support gay marriage at around 25% say thats BS.  It can't cut both ways.

You didn't read either of those articles, did you?

Thanks.  I am glad you agree with me on that statement.  The 70% came from the Fox News poll, the CBS poll had that at 68%.  You can look it up, or you can just go to www.foxnews.com/oreilly and read one of his ''Talking points'' memos where he has the official websites where these polls were done and posted.  68%-70% is such a huge majority, over the 2/3rds mark, I don't see a reason to debate an issue the American people have made their mind up on.


For what it is worth, the State of Missouri recently amended their state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, via voter refurendum.  As I recall the measure was approved with 71% of the vote, an "overwhelming landslide" in today's politics.  So at least in that state, the aforementioned CNN/CBS polls are close.

However, Missouri "tends" to be a swing state between Repub and Democrat.  The 2000 Presidential election was close to 50/50 (I forget the detail results).

So it is possible to be overwhelmingly pro-hetero-only-marriage, yet ambivalent on Repub-versus-Democrat

So here we go with labels.  Okay i'm a honophob because I don't think gay marriage should be made legal, smart move.  I guess the other 70% of americans who don't support gay marriage are also homophobs?  Liberal lying labels, watch out.


You're right (and correct) it was a cheap shot.  But you avoid my point.  No one here mentioned marriage until you brought it up.  Go back to the original question.

The same people who tell me all the polls showing Kerry ahead by 1 or 2 points are fine, but the same polls showing people who support gay marriage at around 25% say thats BS.  It can't cut both ways.


I don't recall anyone here asserting that the polls are wrong re gay marriage.  Clearly, public opinion opposes it, for whatever reason.  Again, you are trying to redirect the discussion away from the topic.  If you want to discuss gay marriage, start a thread.  This one is about gay couples adopting kids, gay relationships, and gay politicians.  The question of legal recognition of those relationships by the state is a different (although related) issue.

::)  By the by, does anyone happen to know if Murdoch has issued talking points that address those specific questions, yet?   




Rupert Murdoch issue "talking points" (directives) regarding "fair and balanced reporting"?  My dear, you blaspheme  ;).

Bobby, did you just make that up? ;D ;D :D

IMO, people should be allowed to live their lives however they please, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.  If marrying their sister makes them happy, as long as it's not directly affecting me or my family, it's none of my business.  I'm sure most people do "things" behind closed doors that someone out there wouldn't approve of so why worry about what your neighbor is doing? 


Nah. Vic Reeves did. He's a British comedian - very funny and quite surreal at the same time.  :D

I have a brother and sister who never married, live at home, are taking care
of my mother in her old age.  They manage to make ends meet.  I would like
it if they were able to have some kind of legal arrangement so that when one
of them dies, the other could collect on the others social security the same way
they would be able to if they were married.  Or a way, instead of three separate
health insurance plans they could be covered under one.  There is more to a
legalized union than sex. 

I have a brother and sister who never married, live at home, are taking care
of my mother in her old age. They manage to make ends meet. I would like
it if they were able to have some kind of legal arrangement so that when one
of them dies, the other could collect on the others social security the same way
they would be able to if they were married. Or a way, instead of three separate
health insurance plans they could be covered under one. There is more to a
legalized union than sex.



I agree with you 100%, Danoota.  Like your siblings, these people rely on each other monetarily as well as emotionally.  It doesn't seem right that if one dies the other one could lose everything.

For what it is worth, the State of Missouri recently amended their state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, via voter refurendum.  As I recall the measure was approved with 71% of the vote, an "overwhelming landslide" in today's politics.  So at least in that state, the aforementioned CNN/CBS polls are close.

However, Missouri "tends" to be a swing state between Repub and Democrat.  The 2000 Presidential election was close to 50/50 (I forget the detail results).

So it is possible to be overwhelmingly pro-hetero-only-marriage, yet ambivalent on Repub-versus-Democrat


That is true, that was a vote not a poll, and 71% of the people of Missouri which is no large conservative state voted to ban all gay marriages in that state.  Missouri is a very good state to look at if you want to get the feel of how the rest of the country feels, or so says Larry King.  I think King said something like Missouri has always went with the winning president since the election of 1956, which means since 1956 Missouri's electoral votes have always gone to the winner of the election.

For what it is worth, the State of Missouri recently amended their state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, via voter refurendum.  As I recall the measure was approved with 71% of the vote, an "overwhelming landslide" in today's politics.  So at least in that state, the aforementioned CNN/CBS polls are close.

However, Missouri "tends" to be a swing state between Repub and Democrat.  The 2000 Presidential election was close to 50/50 (I forget the detail results).

So it is possible to be overwhelmingly pro-hetero-only-marriage, yet ambivalent on Repub-versus-Democrat


California several years ago also passed a State Constitutional Ammendment about this same issue several years ago.  And it passed with roughly the same percentage.

And as far as I can recall, California is hardly a bastion of Conservatism.