how are my anologies worthless? explain.
secondly, that wasnt even the main point of my last post. if you want to address the more 'realevant' part of what i had to say, then please do.
watch, i will use your method of disscussion:
boards, youre not backing up your statments, therefore they are quite useless, you ignorant bigot.
dont just say my statements are irrelevant, (because they arent) explain how the 'right' to marry (which, as it stands, is a 'right' that has some restrictions on it) and other restricted rights, such as the ones i mentioned, (student financial aid etc.) are so totally incompatible that they connot be compared. also, with the music analogy, i think you totally missed the point of it.
some people are born with the predisposition to be musicians. some are born with the predisposition to be good mathematicians. some people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. these predispositions come in varying degrees, and if expounded on in life, they can become predominate. a friend of mine, who is in his third year of a neuroscience major explained it to me this way:
homosexuals do in fact have a brain anatomy that is a bit different than heterosexuals. a part of the brain (it may have been the amigdalah, the part of the brain that controls emotional memory among other things, but i cant quite remember) is enlarged in homosexuals. its also true that parts of the motor cortex are enlarged in high level pianists, and other parts of the brain are enlarged in people with other strong predispositions.
there are two reasons that these parts of the brain are different sizes in different people. the first reason is that they were born that way. the second reason is that they practice, and endulge that pre existing condidtion. this goes for someone who practices piano all day, or for someone who endulges their homosexual predisposition. the more you embrace the tendancy, the more it becomes entrenched.
so you see, when looked at this way, there really isnt that much difference between the two.
so if there were a homosexual lobby out there (and there is) that were to push for gay marrige, it would be along the same lines as a movment for mathematicians to be admitted to juliard. they could go to MIT, but they dont want to accept that.
what i am saying is that there ought to be civil unions, or some other tpype of way where committed homosexual partners can be privy to the rights that they are currently denied, but that does not mean that they should be entitled to marrige. marrige is defined...(key word here, DEFINED) as between a man and a woman. that is what it is. its the same as how my name is mark, or that the earth is comprised of dirt and rock. thats what it is.
so if you want to go further into my problem with the judiciary re defining things, then read my previous posts. i can tell that you (boards) didnt, as you didnt address the meat of what i said concerning this thing.
so please, boards, im not asking for your antipathy here, as you have seemed pretty anxious to push aside what i have said as worthless, or irrelevant, when you have added little to no new thought to this disscussion.
so if your going to try and disregard this, please address my points and refute them. (this is, however, not possible, because ive stated fact)
thank you.
Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
