Yes. I believe it would. And one cancels out the other.

I have no more a ‘lifestyle’ than you do. A lifestyle is choosing to live on the French Riviera. An orientation is yours and my gift from God and genetics.

And I’m planning on staying right ‘in people’s faces’ PCD .. you’re losing ground you and yours. The candidates have to address their gay constituency now and the media is representing us as are the advertisers for local and national progamming.

The world is changing PCD and unless you live blindly burried in an ostrich’s sand hole I suggest you wake up to the reality that over ten percent of the population you pass daily on the street or on your freeways is (and intents to remain) happily gay in orientation.

Live with it or be left behind.

If you want to set back your lifestyle, just stay in people’s faces. You get pushed back so bad it will make your head spin.

“There is no such thing as gay “marriage”, and never will be. Marriage is a term that is defined within the context of religion. It is homosexual union and needs no euphemisms.”

Name your religious source for that mistaken remark Robert.

It’s a part of this Commonwealth’s LAW no as much as that makes your skin crawl. Gay Marriage is alive, well, and thriving with many of my friends here in the Bay State.

There is no ‘perversion’ to it – simply equal application.

And again. Had one left Civil Right in th’60s up to the general population for public vote (since the American public is SO enlightened 8-1) black Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus and drinking from separate fountains.

#17 Robert:
“I don’t care what they do, it is their business. But they have no right, no cause to twist the meaning of yet another word to their bidding as they have already done with gay, partner, etc.”

Yes it IS ‘our business’ and none of yours. So bug off.

Gay Marriage in Massachusetts doesn’t affect heterosexuals in any manner shape or form. You’re simply sounding idiotic and rather provincial.

No twisting going on. We simply refuse to allow you bastards to deny us our inalienable rights Robert. You guys suck at being married. Why not give us a shot at it? /:)

Yes, unfortunately, when you get into upper division classes, it is generally true that there are fewer women and they are less attractive.

Coming to your question on the fun of greek parties… well, as I am straight I am not sure how much fun one may have with only guys around (actually I DO know, because I studied at a technical college with the only few girls around, and those ones were a good argument FOR homosexuality )…
I guess the real profitable kind of sexual orientation would be bi-sexuality because it sounds like “endless possibilities”, but I guess I’m not as cool as David Bowie to “attempt” that just like that… :”>

Yeah, what great fun that sounds like, right Matthias?

But for most of the human race, it is something they can do without, have no interest in.

There is no such thing as gay “marriage”, and never will be. Marriage is a term that is defined within the context of religion. It is homosexual union and needs no euphemisms.

I don’t care what they do, it is their business. But they have no right, no cause to twist the meaning of yet another word to their bidding as they have already done with gay, partner, etc.

Peejz,
what I am not sure about is why the legislation (apart from the formal procedures) should have any kind of decision on this at all.
If two people of the same sex decide to live together, they will do it anyway! If they don’t get married or have some sort of officially signed partnership, will it make them heterosexuals as a consequence???

There is only one argument against homosexuality as a drawback to the society and that is that it is rather unlikely that gay couples become biological parents and therefor they may harm the demography- they might not “produce” new future taxpayers… But honestly: not allowing them to marry eachother will not prevent this. And with some step further, whealthy gay couples might be allowed to adopt unwanted children of poor families and this would compensate the social drawback.

I really don’t care about what gay people do to be happy or to prove their love. It is their privacy and no gay (so far) interfered with my privacy either.

Again you bring religion into the arguement, when it has been proven that this is an individual issue. Some of the most liberal states, without a strong religious voice, have banned gay marriage. Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Wiccans, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, etc., are all voicing their position,and the results don’t even come close to anything like the picture you try to paint. People of all persuassions talk a big talk about tolerance, until they get into that voting booth, and that’s where the truth comes out.