Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom

[Amianthus]

How does the law handle Muslims, who are allowed up to four wives?  If I were a Muslim and I couldn't get married to No. 2 legally, I'd be plenty pissed off and just like the gay and lesbian lovers, I'd want to file a court challenge.

The same way it handles Mormons who want to marry more than one wife - they can't, it's illegal.

[sirs]

kinda doubt it`s a choice  I`ve been to the folsom street faire
lets just say the choices are very limited  ernest borgnine is a the catagory and proof it`s not a choice

Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior, are you advocating that the act having sex with animals is not a choice?  The act of having sex with underage children is not a choice?  The act of having sexual flings with someone else while married to Hillary is not a choice.....oh, I see your point

[_JS]

Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior

Witnessed?

What do you do again???

LOLOL 

[sirs]

Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior

Witnessed?  What do you do again???

LOLOL 

Let's just say, a little bird showed me       

[_JS]

Let's just say, a little bird showed me       

So now a small avian creature was involved?

Where does it stop with you?

[sirs]

I thought I already referenced animals     

[Plane]

Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior

Witnessed?  What do you do again???

LOLOL 

Let's just say, a little bird showed me       

Isn't part of your business treatment of sprains?

Have you ever had to tell a client to stop telling you how he got his injury?

[sirs]

Isn't part of your business treatment of sprains?  Have you ever had to tell a client to stop telling you how he got his injury?

On the contrary, the more infomation I have, the better & more comprehensive treatment plan that can be implimented.  Though there is that occasional TMI moment that can occur

[Michael Tee]

<<The same way it [the law] handles Mormons who want to marry more than one wife - they can't, it's illegal.>>

So who says unjust and unfair laws remain on the books for all time?  When I was in university, the law said that Martin Luther King wasn't good enough to drink out of the same fountain Ted Bundy drank from.  Laws can be changed.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, there are more than a few polygamous Mormon families scattered about in small towns in Utah, Arizona and Idaho mostly. As a rule, they are not arrested unless a wife or daughter complains, as one girl did recently, and they sent a guy named Jeff off to jail as an accomplice to rape. He forced the girl to marry her first cousin and she complained.

There are quite a few polygamous Mormons in breakaway Mormon churches. Prosecution is rare. Some families are said to be quite happy. I am sure that the happiest polygamous families are much happier than the saddest monogamous ones.

I am not against them being prosecuted, but the fact is that it rarely happens

[sirs]

it's called CIVIL UNIONS.  They marry, they get an official license from the state, and under the law, would have the same exact rights as a married couple.  Now, if we could just get the left to actually support it, we might get somewhere.  But apparently, they're too hung up on trying to redefine marriage, instead of focusing on the concept of equal rights, under the law

No offense Sirs, that may pass in California with Republicans and even Conservative Democrats but here in the South, to use the proper expression - that dog won't hunt.  Republicans and Democrats here might pay some sort of lip service to the whole "civil unions" notion, but the reality is that they would never vote for such a thing because to do so would be politicial suicide.

Is that really what you think?  Do you have some polling data that might help validate that hypothesis?  Not saying it wouldn't be a harder sell in some areas, but as Bt already alluded to, given the option of marriage vs civil unious, it makes perfect sense how the latter could see legislative light

There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove Homosexuality is anything other than a sexual choice, so that arguement is largely moot

Not yet,

As I said, there's "wishful thinking", but until there's actualy scientific data, there is none, unlike that of race and gender

but there is common sense.  I know that when I came of age (or however you wish to describe it) I didn't sit down and think about which gender I might prefer. I liked girls. There was no decision involved. When I saw Janet Jackson or Paula Abdul (laugh now, but they were hot then!) I didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted, I WAS attracted.   And there are psychological studies that show that homosexuals showed preferences and attractions towards the same gender at an earlier age.  I don't really see where "choice" has anything to do with it.

All nice, but as i said, all speculative.  You CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies.  Just as some chose to be attracted to other things, some things immoral, other things illegal.  It's how you deal with that attraction and the emotions involved

[sirs]

<<Your flaws remain as exposed as when you 1st started down this path, Tee.
<<- Civil Unions give homosexual couples equal rights under the law, so that arguement is moot>>

You just don't get it, do you?  The very fact that a civil union WOULD give equal rights to gays does not remove the fact that they would be discriminated against in law by the fact of the separate legal category created for them. 

No, the person not getting it is THE ONE IGNORING the FACT that civil unions WOULD provide EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.  There's already laws that make it illegal to discrimnate against homosexuals.  Cicil Unions simply apply it full circle to those who want to get married.  Therefore the rights they'd be given would be EQUAL to that of a married couple, simply given another name, that isn't already defined as a marriage between a man & a woman.  Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage.  What makes it lesser?....because you say so?? 

The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh), demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men. 

<< Trying to compare the segregation practices on people who SCIENTIFICALLY/FACTUALLY had no choice in the pigment they were born with those who's faith teaches them that certain acts are to be considered immoral is transparently desperate & intellectually dishonest, in every way, shape, and form tried>>

So what?  Their faith also teaches them that the earth is 6,000 years old, so fuck 'em. 

Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender.  There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences.  And Civil Unions provide Homosexual couples equal rights under the law, as married couples.  Simple as that

[_JS]

Is that really what you think?  Do you have some polling data that might help validate that hypothesis?  Not saying it wouldn't be a harder sell in some areas, but as Bt already alluded to, given the option of marriage vs civil unious, it makes perfect sense how the latter could see legislative light

Is that what I think? Yes. It the truth. I don't need polling data Sirs, I have raw votes. Look at those constitutional amendments that passed (all by wide margins). Those ban civil unions. Yes, they ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well. We're not talking about California anymore, Sirs. These Republicans and Democrats in the South are very conservative.

You and Bt are talking about a hypothetical scenario that does not exist. It is easy to pay lip service to civil unions when your state has banned them. The other states of the South have banned gay marriage, they just did not include language to ban civil unions. Again, I'm not suggesting that you, personally are simply paying the idea lip service. I'm saying that some in the GOP and Democratic parties are, because they can easily afford to.

As I said, there's "wishful thinking", but until there's actualy scientific data, there is none, unlike that of race and gender

Huh?

I just said there are psychological studies. And what does race and gender have to do with anything?

Are you saying that homosexuals make a conscious choice to be attracted to the same sex? (I'm asking to clarify, because I don't understand your position.)

All nice, but as i said, all speculative.  You CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies.  Just as some chose to be attracted to other things, some things immoral, other things illegal.  It's how you deal with that attraction and the emotions involved

I "CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies?"

So, you are saying that when you were young you actually made a conscious effort to sit down and think about to whom you were attracted?

I'm not suggesting that everyone's attraction be legalised Sirs, clearly there is the issue of consenting adults, cruelty to animals (the beings have to be human, I think we can agree  ).

[Lanya]

Ohio's amendment bans civil unions. People who voted for it don't want gays to be treated in any way like hetero couples.  They don't care if it isn't called marriage.

This topic of "choice" is very interesting. 
I can only think that it must be a long, hard slog every day.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It would make sense to make civil unions that would bestow all the features of marriage legal to same sex couples. I would support this.
It is a compromise, and a fair one. Those who could not abide not being officially married could get married in Canada or Massachusetts or wherever it is legal.

The thing is that the ratwing does not want this to be legal.

They don't have the power to legislate criminal penalties against sodomy or legal stonings as mentioned in the Bible, but many of the most vocal ones would do this in an instant if they could. But they can't.