Good post (#61), Salamangator.
I think you pretty much said how most people feel about the issue.

And I still maintain you can NEVER duplicate the special charisma, chemistry, and energy which just comes naturally in any relationship between a man and a woman. Ying and yang.

While two men can honestly have love for each other and bond in a relationship -- you can't change male hormones and sex drive nor the male's natural urge for sex with more than one partner - those are facts. Sure, men in a heterosexual marriage will still have the same male urges, but the female counterpart is not as sexually charged so the chances of her demanding -- and getting -- fidelity in their marriage is much higher. Which leads to most heterosexual marriages usually lasting much longer and overall being a lot more stable -- especially for any children involved.

Most people look at "marriage" as being a sacrament and having religious blessings attached to it -- and due to their religious beliefs -- strongly believe the term "marriage" should apply only to a union between one man and one woman.

My question --

If, as gays maintain all the time -- they only want the same legal benefits and rights which are accorded heterosexual marriages -- would gays accept not using the term "marriage" when they wed and be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" IF their "civil union" was accorded the same nationwide federal recognition (complete with all the same benefits) now given to heterosexual "marriages"?

I believe if gays would just quit demanding that their union be called a "marriage" and instead accept a national federally recognized "civil union" (with all the same benefits) then their chances of gaining a much more wide-spread acceptance would be greatly improved.

However, if gays continued to insist on using the more religious term of "marriage" to describe their union simply because they want to get their own way, then one has to honestly doubt their sincerity about wanting to wed because they love each other.

I'd really like to read some opinions from others on here as to why a federally-recognized "civil union" (giving gays all the same federal benefits but leaving out calling it a "marriage") would or would not be acceptable to them

...But the constituency for plural marriage is much, much higher. And they'll be using all the same arguments you do, albeit without the annoying early line breaks.

#34 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-02-09 11:44 AM

I have to agree with you on that one, RightisRight.

Once the door is open to one group to no longer recognize traditional marriage as being between only one man and one woman then those pushing for legally allowing heterosexual poligamy would be the next issue.

If Ellen DeGeneres isn't openly flaunting her being a lesbian in those J.C. Penny commercials, then what's the problem? That "Million Moms" group surely can find something a lot more productive to do with their time and energy.

I wonder what Joe would have to say about all this...

Joseph Gayetty is widely credited with being the inventor of modern commercially available toilet paper in the United States. Gayetty's paper, first introduced in 1857, was available as late as the 1920s. Gayetty's Medicated Paper was sold in packages of flat sheets, watermarked with the inventor's name. Original advertisements for the product used the tagline "The greatest necessity of the age! Gayetty's medicated paper for the water-closet."

Seth Wheeler of Albany, New York, obtained the earliest United States patents for toilet paper and dispensers, the types of which eventually were in common usage in that country, in 1883.

I thought a falafel was some kind of bakery good or dessert.

This guy can kiss his butt adios for good if he's being tried for murder in Mexico's legal system.

Dos Equis?

Well howdy there, Gimme. So have you been being a good boy lately?

I think I already know the answer to that one. lol

#139 You have a link for that?

#143 | Posted by rhinomaximus

Why haven't you heard the new policy around here -- "No citation needed."

lol

Read on the Nooner about your Mom being ill, Bellatrix. Hope things are going a little better for you and your family. It's not easy to deal with, what with the constant worry and all.

What? You mean Senator Joe "Let's go to war for Israel and use American lives to fight it" Lieberman wants to nuke Iran? Naaaah.

Joe Lieberman belongs as a politician in Israel's Knesset and not in the U.S. Senate. Lieberman -- who holds dual citizenship with both the U.S. and Israel -- is a prime example why no one who is a dual citizen should ever be allowed to hold political office in this country. We all know exactly where Lieberman's true loyalty lies and it's not with the United States.

Is this one of the spots where they hold those Texas "Starry Nite" events and everyone shows up with their telescopes for a stargazing party?

Tragic story.

Big, ol' full Moon up in the sky tonight.

Too often we take for granted the beauty that's all around us.

Yeah, I disagree with [Santorum] on most issues, but was surprised by how knowledgeable he and Bachmann were on foreign policy.

#41 | Posted by Phoenix

You mean how they both shamelessly groveled to the Neocons during the debates promising they'd nuke millions of people in Iran on Israel's behalf should either of them get elected?

Yeah, they're terrific on foreign policy. Are you nuts?

This is fun.

57% for Santorum. Wow. The GOP elites must be shaking in their boots.

...he would do the work of the people.

Posted by RexZeitgeist

"of the people"?

Why how very "progessive" sounding.

LOL

...BTW, she'll be 21 in a week.

#11 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-07 08:20 PM

I remember the photo you posted of your daughter and her two friends on here awhile back, Reitze. They all looked like nice girls in that picture so you have every right to be proud. Just be glad you got her thru her teen years and she's finally 21. That in itself has to be a load off your shoulders. lol

CHRIS -

Here - www.delish.com -- use it when you treat yourself to your next virtual pina colada.

#28 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Thanks, Doc, and your virtual Pina Coladas are the only ones I'll drink -- they're the best!

LOL LOD. You must be older than me. Oooo the m word. I wonder what the "authorities" said to these 13 year olds about sex? Ref the parallel DR thread: drudge.com/... Girls, 13, given contraceptive implants at school .

#7 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-07

Live Or Die just turned 30 (according see his birthday thread). Even at 18 years younger than you, Reitz, he knows it's a little weird for a married guy of 48 to be writing back on the internet to 13 year old little girls. Hopefully we won't be seeing you any time soon on Dateline's "To Catch A Predator."

I mean, hey, what parent wouldn't be proud to see their innocent-eyed 13 year old daughter -- still in braces yet -- being in some youtube video using the word "bullshit" and touting why it's wrong to shame her and her little school friends by calling them sluts simply because they like to dress like whores and may have sex with multiple partners.

And as for 48 year old "Reitz01" responding to this 13 year old girl on her youtube video with the following and telling her she's "standing up with self-respect" :

"Thanks for speaking TRUTH to the idiots of this world. You rocked this one. Saw a clip from it on young turks. Right on kid! BTW, sub-request too. Regarding the multi-partners and hating I strongly recommend reading the bible cover to cover in order to comprehend the depthÃƒÆ and source of the cultural biases. Those public hates aren't going anywhere - but standing up with self respect isn't either. For your generation its finally common sense. My generation (I'm 48) admitted masturbation.

-reitze01"

#3 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-02-07 11:54 AM

Well, that's just downright creepy.