*smh*
I am disappointed in you Tousi. I thought you were more intelligent than that, but I guess I was wrong.
That is an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. :roll:
*smh*
My dear friend, I don't think Tousi is prejudicin'. He is seein' different just like me. I am seein' different, because a " woman " is really a " woman " - a " female " nature with real breasts and vagina. A real woman could give a birth and can breastfeed a baby.
Can you help me to understand how it is that 2 same men or 2 same women be an equal as a man and a woman - to make the same sex to become recognized ?
We are all humans and we are all equal..doesnt matter what's between our legs.
What I do not understand is what people do behind closed doors becomes everyone else's business?
I was talkin' about marriage.
My dear friend, I don't think Tousi is prejudicin'. He is seein' different just like me. I am seein' different, because a " woman " is really a " woman " - a " female " nature with real breasts and vagina. A real woman could give a birth and can breastfeed a baby.
Can you help me to understand how it is that 2 same men or 2 same women be an equal as a man and a woman - to make the same sex to become recognized ?
My dear friend, I don't think Tousi is prejudicin'.
He is seein' different just like me. I am seein' different, because a " woman " is really a " woman " - a " female " nature with real breasts and vagina. A real woman could give a birth and can breastfeed a baby.
Can you help me to understand how it is that 2 same men or 2 same women be an equal as a man and a woman - to make the same sex to become recognized ?
If gay people want to get married and have the same equal rights as other married people want, why should that be banned? Is it because they share the same genitals?
Well it still sounds selfish to me.
The marriage is not for just to have the baby, but also an love between the relationship.
Do you think that's fair for straight couples to live together in same place forever and have the benefits and taxes from the governments (I am not sure about the benefit of marriage, anyway) while the gay couples have to stay together forever and doesn't get anything that straight couples got?
It's not fair, JMO.
Well it still sounds selfish to me.
The marriage is not for just to have the baby, but also an love between the relationship.
Do you think that's fair for straight couples to live together in same place forever and have the benefits and taxes from the governments (I am not sure about the benefit of marriage, anyway) while the gay couples have to stay together forever and doesn't get anything that straight couples got?
It's not fair, JMO.
Then how come it is difficult to recognize for same sex partners and not heterosexual partners ?
Right..it is not fair ...that is like telling gay couples they are not worthy enough for marriage.
Problem : Recognization difference.
My dear friend, I don't think Tousi is prejudicin'. He is seein' different just like me. I am seein' different, because a " woman " is really a " woman " - a " female " nature with real breasts and vagina. A real woman could give a birth and can breastfeed a baby.
Can you help me to understand how it is that 2 same men or 2 same women be an equal as a man and a woman - to make the same sex to become recognized ?
I was talkin' about marriage.
And?
Olbermann says it so well.
Countdown
Transcript:
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love - Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Excerpts:
"If you voted for this Proposition or support
those who did or the sentiment they expressed,
I have some questions, because, truly, I do not
understand. Why does this matter to you? What
is it to you? In a time of impermanence and
fly-by-night relationships, these people over
here want the same chance at permanence and
happiness that is your option. They don't want to
deny you yours. They don't want to take anything
away from you. They want what you want—a chance to
be a little less alone in the world"
.......
"I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black
people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states
had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967.
1967.
"The parents of the President-Elect of the United States
couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states
of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse
than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage,
some black people still couldn't marry black people. It
is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our
sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized,
if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property,
they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child.
Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part,"
but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves
were not legally recognized."
Just say that it is what it caused a problem with " recognization difference ". Some people see different while same sex partners see the same as equal. We have 2 separate group that see different from one group to another.
It's why I posted one article talkin' about Supreme Court will give gay/lesbian people the right to marry. It will happen sometime after Obama takes his seat in White House. I am not sayin' that it will happen immediately, because it takes the time to change new judges in Supreme Courts and many of them will be liberals. They are for the laws of the land. President-elect Obama will ask people to support nation, because he is against it and can't do anythin' about it. It will become recognize after it becomes a law in every state ( 50 states ). That's what I was readin' about this in a few days ago.