If by relationships you mean marriages, then no. If by relationships you mean relationships, then what are you talking about?

Lol

Told you so?

If and when the big one hits, I hope your money is still worth a gun and ammo.

>>It doesnt effect you unless your gay, so i dont know why you oppose it so strongly.  it may not be for you, but you shoudlnt be the judge of what concerns others.<<

You don't pay taxes or have any contact with the nation in which you live? The ignorance here is astounding. Nobody is "judging" others. They're simply saying they do not support making gay marriage an institution in their government.

>>Kinda an oxymoron dont you think?  depriving of liberty is what it is when you dont allow gays to marry because they are gay, so technically its thier right to marry. <<

Nobody has the liberty to make any institution they please. We have a democratic republic so that the people have a say in what institutions their government recognizes. No one has a right to tax breaks for institutions that the government is not concerned with. The government is not concerned with your gay sex. Heterosexual relationships form the basis for family, the most basic building block upon which our society is built. Homosexual couples do not. You're making up rights that do not exist. You're making up the "liberty" to tax the liberty of others.

Learn the difference between "your" and "you're." Nobody takes you seriously when you haven't reached the 1st grade level education that would teach you to use the right words.

>>Children can grow up and succeed as long as they have a loving family, and the sex of thier parent matters as much as thier color.  Are you sexist then aswell?<<

Bullshit. Children learn roles from their parents. Men and women are inherently different. Children are best raised by a mother and a father. Pretending doesn't change this.

>>-ive seen a few people raised by gay parents, and they seem to be as successful as anyone else i know.  <<

But your observations haven't reached 1st grade yet, so we're still waiting for more complete results right?

>>-if stragiht parents only raised straight children...where did gay people come from? <<

What kind of nonsensical if statement is that? If monkeys had tusks, where did gay people come from? Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

>>civil unions are cool, but they should reserve the right to marry, unless you think them less than you are<<

Homosexual couples contribute nothing to society that heterosexual couples do. Homosexual couples are "less" significant to society than heterosexual couples. Nobody's violating homosexuals' rights by acknowledging the truth that there are inherent differences between two homosexuals having sex and two heterosexuals committed to raising children together.

>>you can say gay is unnatural, but there are many instances in nature were gay is natural...did you know some lions are gay, and have gay sex? The king of the jungle lol<<

There are zero instances in nature of animals getting taxed differently because they have sexual intercourse with members of the same gender. FYI, you will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay.

>>So you are saying that a couple married for years will loose their tax break if either the man or woman looses their ability to reproduce? What about old couples, do they loose their tax breaks?<<

That's a matter of coincidence, not form. Marriage serves a foundational function in society. Homosexual "marriage" would share none of the same significance, regardless of the coincidence that keeps some hetersexuals from producing children for medical misfortune.

>>And what about the people who never have kids by choice? the argument is flawed, based on the assumption that the tax breaks are for people who only recive them because they will concieve...<<
>>lol and if thier someones child goes on to be a non-paying citizen who goes to jail, is thier paretns tax break reversed and do they owe money?<<

It's a crucial institution in society. Only you would propose that because criminal behavior happens that we should ignore the natural relationships between men and women and their subsequent children that form the most fundamental building block of society.

I'm with Zarf on this one.

>> I would like to meet somebody who does have one because they must be pretty few and far between<<

I didn't mean to make it personal, and while I may have previously (I'm a drinker!), in these latest posts it was just in regards to the phrase "tyranny of the majority," which I did not use as you claimed (and I've since clarified). You started it... after I started it... Let's forget the whole thing and have a drink? Oh wait, I'll just pick another fight after a few drinks. We're ****ed.

We disagree over the extent to which we trust any eduction system to be fair and offer the right education on matters like homosexuality and racism. Despite what I post here such as referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder, I am as tolerant as they come. I have friends of many races and even a few of the other sexuality. I have fewer homosexual friends just because we tend to have less in common that bonds us. I'm an avid fan of the individual and, despite how often I play the devil's advocate here and sexuality turns out to be one key example were's discussing here (concerning education's warranted/ideal concern with the matter), I do firmly hold a "to each his own" value and I wouldn't argue that the law of the land ever be concerned with a person's sexuality. I believe in treating people equally regardless of color, sex, or sexuality. I just don't trust any government or educational board to be enlightened, impartial, educated, or competent enough to offer education on a matter such as homosexuality without imparting its own ignorant and incomplete (and often erroneous) views (motivated by a host of political goals) in with its education.

I completely agree that it is moral, righteous, and intellectually sound to believe that a man's inherent dignity does not depend to any degree on his race or sexuality or much anything else than the content of his character. I believe that racism, for instance, is one of the great self-evidently-evil ignorant ideologies that's done and continues to do harm the world over. I do not, however, trust a bunch of politicians (and politically motivated individuals--ie, the ones who tend to run for board positions) to education children on these matters. Many, for instance, teach about the righteousness of policies such as those of affirmative action in fixing the evil of racism of the past (and present). I have a problem with this teaching, because it fails to get past treating people differently based upon their race and commits the same crime as the ignorant racists of the past (to a lesser degree, perhaps I may grant, but that does not negate the fact). This is my position on affirmative action, a topic inherently arising out of discussion of race in history. Your position may be different. This is why I don't like educators inevitably putting in their two cents on the matter to children.

I acknowledge that parents cannot always be relied upon to give their children all they need, but that always has and always will be the case. Parents can indoctrinate children to distrust the education that can be offered to safeguard them against the education their parents miseducate them with. I just trust governments less and would place a bigger emphasis on the parents, whose influence tends to trumph that of government education in any case. I would rather public education error on the side of not seeking undue influence over less academic matters where, in many cases, students are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs because the authority seeking to educate them does not, in fact, have any academic authority over the material they seek to "teach."

I apologize for my lengthy statements. Feel free to ignore them or not read them before ever pointing them out as a flaw. I wish to be as clear and comprehensive as I can.

"The spirit that combines tolerance with conviction, open-mindedness with loyalty, yet compromises neither, is a mature product of philosophy." --Edgar Sheffield Brightman
"Life is richer when all voices/perspectives find full expression." --Pat Arneson

The point is that when state-run education includes treatment of subjects such as homosexuality and transgendered-studies, academics and real, useful education that serves students as they grow up into productive citizens suffers. Dance around this point and criticize things I didn't say or claim all you want, you're not addressing my point.

I merely said that when narrow-minded people call everyone they disagree with narrow-minded, all communication ceases. There is no dialogue, no exchange of meaning which results in both disagreeing parties better understanding what values the other side has which they are not willing to compromise. Communication does not negate those clashing values, but healthy adults are able to communicate those values to each other so that others whom they disagree with know clearly on what matters their values clash. I did not call anyone narrow-minded or claim that anyone here or anyone with any particular set of values was narrow-minded. You're being overly defensive, so you just attacked me and again do not address or respond to my point.

I did not use the word "tyranny" as an emotional appeal. If you had any education you would recognize that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is very grounded in much academic/scholarly work of the past few centuries. Again you miss the point and do not address the content of my post, merely claim it lacks substance without addressing my substance.

- - - - -

I quoted a premise I disagreed with and stated why. I didn't claim that your premise was not attached to other statements or that it was a point you were making without the context of those other statements. We both know what you said. I'm not trying to misrepresent your thoughts to you. That would be silly.

The lack of honest dialogue that takes place when the narrow-minded refuse any sort of exchange of ideas and call everyone they disagree with narrow-minded is what leads to threads like this, fearful of the very real threat of much larger problems that arise when the willful-ignorant proclaim themselves the enlightened and are self-righteous in wishing to enact their ignorant abuse of power. The tyranny of the majority is nothing you weren't warned about. That is, if your education included any real reading.

Education is funded locally in the USA. Most national education financing is terribly wasteful and its purpose is to exert more national control over education (god forbid my children don't learn about transgendered people and that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder by age 10).

Most policing is funded locally in the USA as well. The FBI and other federal police forces are not the majority of our law enforcement.

>>Goverment =in it for the country <<

hahahahhahahhahahahahahhaa what are you 10 years old?

>>who do you think should have your money?<<

Let's think about this one for a while. It's my money. Hmmmm. Who should posess the money which I posess...

I don't understand how the government gives blacks aids, drugs, and weapons because I'm not black?

What an enlightened position.

To call this "redundancy" is ignorant. Try to defend ignorance of a simple function of language which HOLDS MEANING more. You're a tool.