Are you kidding? ETA: "Your truth should not trump anyone else's truth" isn't a truth in the sense that I'm speaking. It's a right. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but no one has a right to squash someone else's beliefs. You can declare all day long until you're blue in the face that my beliefs are wrong, but you have no right to literally force your beliefs upon me.

Believing something is truth and espousing it as such, and actually being truth are two different things. Your truth should not trump anyone else's truth.

I'm not WoolySocks, but I've thought about this issue before, as well. I WOULD welcome homosexuals who chose to be celibate to join in on the conversation. Does being gay mean they speak for the whole community, however? Nope. They may have viewed their previous lifestyle as self-destructive, but that doesn't make it a universal truth for all gays everywhere.

But the ONLY thing that makes people see homosexuality as wrong is religion. Anyone of any religion (or non-religion) who is of sound mind can look at the actions of a psychopath and see them as harmful (to themselves and others) and morally wrong. But that's not so with homosexuality. You may believe homosexuals harm themselves by acting out their truth, but not all Christians do, and not all religions do. And what they do in their own free time is of no consequence to you. Psychopaths, on the other hand... Thank God you and others who feel so strongly about homosexuals not acting on their feelings were born hetero. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had the choice of marriage or celibacy within your religious framework -- celibacy would have been your only option.

Not if you believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice, just like skin color.

Pet store - I quit after two weeks upon realizing the owner was a jerk.

Went the trolley!!

I am so very sorry for your loss.

But any reputable lawyer will turn them down. If they do so happen to find a lawyer, nothing will come of it. Because nothing can. There is absolutely no legal threat.

I've decided to no longer engage. Which is why I'm quoting your post -- you summed up my thoughts exactly. I've gotta claw my way outta this rabbit hole and go to bed.

Is this.... Is this real life?

That, and my father's already spent my dowry on my husband. :(

I have to agree, which is why I'm going to stop engaging. This has probably been the weirdest internet exchange I've ever had (and quite possibly, weirdest exchange ever).

You're right, it doesn't. The difference is you're trying to claim gay marriage will lead to the decline of civilization by quoting Einstein. MLK was leading a civil rights movement, and no matter his moral failings, his quote was directly related to his cause. The quote you're using is not directly related to your cause. Einstein was very literally saying that we will destroy ourselves with the use of nuclear weapons. Not that homosexual marriage or any such thing will lead to the break down of society and life as we know it.

And Albert Einstein had many an extra-marital affair. Does that not make him a degenerate?

There were your original statements (which, by the way, weren't even in this thread): The first quote was in response to someone saying civilization was in decline. The second was in response to another poster who wasn't sure where you were going with that quote. Are you saying people will give up on civilization because it's not worth fighting for anymore? I'm just.... lost. While we're throwing quotations around, how about: "We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others." -- Will Rogers

1) I'm not seeing the connection between Einstein's quote and homosexual marriage; and 2) I'm not addressing the man or the quote -- I'm addressing the quoter. Your continued use of his quote isn't proving anything. I'm not sure what that quote is even being used to prove.

Alright, color me stupid, but what's with the endless reference to the Einstein quote you brought up? Was he established as a prophet? Was he perhaps, oh I don't know, expressing an opinion about the absurdity of wars? I'm just not following the almost worshipful mentions of Einstein here.

Amen! My husband and I got married at the ripe ol' ages of 19 and 20, not so we could begin to procreate, but because we knew the legal protections provided by marriage were the next step in our relationship. My husand and I are still waffling on whether we will have children, but that doesn't make our marriage any less of one. Nor does it for those who are infertile or otherwise without children.

These are the exact protections I was speaking of. There can be vindictive partners in any relationship - hetero or not. When it comes to homosexual relationships and children, usually (always?) one partner will have custody while the other has none. No rights, nada. I'm with you in hoping that these sorts of situations will soon be handled as they are within heterosexual relationships and separations.

This decision makes my heart happy beyond words. Many happy years to all those who can now get married and live long, happy lives with their partner while being legally protected as all married couples should.

nm

I'm pretty sure she finds the beliefs of those who oppose interracial marriage and the like repulsive. That's what I assumed, anyways, given the context.

Absolutely not. If you know how insurance works, you know that the injured party doesn't usually have a say in who will be responsible for the bills. Especially if the injury occurs on private property.

I definitely don't feel it goes to this extreme. Thank you for bringing it up though -- I know I had heard of such a mental illness, but I couldn't quite remember the name. It's helpful to see where the lines of mental illness are drawn surrounding this issue (of feeling real and fake).