Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/7/06 03:18 PM, MeSmashie wrote: First it was not a ban… it was reaffirmation of state level stricture.

Understood.

Second marriage is a state administered function not local and not federal. This is why there is a STATE licensing fee.

But, the right to marry should be controlled by the federal level of government, and administered by the state level. But, meh, that idea's confusing, and, most people would think inneficient - I see your point, but honestly, it leaves a divided nation (as far as the homosexual community is concerned) for it to be a state descision.

I would also like to point out that although I have no problem with homosexuals living with each other. The mayor of San Francisco should have been removed from office for what he did. Not only did he violate the law, violate and exceed his office, he also damaged the homosexual community that with his antics.

Yeah. I only know a few gay and bi guys, and they all disagreed with him.
Besides it beeing unethical, he did in fact break the law, bottom line.

The city of New York may have the population of a small state; they do not have the right to act in the states stead. So they TOO should be punished for their violations. Regardless of whether homosexuals should have marital rights or not.

Did anyone argue against that?

At least Elliot Spitzer wants to overturn the ruling and institute FULL same sex marriage rights.

Still, the idea is EQUAL RIGHTS.

the church I go to has been labeled a "hate group" about a year or so back because a pair of gay men were turned away by the pastor. he turned them away, then they got all their gay friends to march with him to try and force their way into the church, which failed... miserably, when the men of the church stood in front of the door and refused to let them pass, which led to... you guessed it, them trying to have our small church labeled as a hate group, which oddly enough has multiple ethnicities, no problems, and we all go by the bible, and not this "purpose driven life" book. I never have understood why people would run around professing to be "born against christians" after reading that book and not once picking up a bible.

I'm not trying to say my church's beliefs should be the basis of all things, but people shouldn't try to force their beliefs on others. there are plenty of churches out there that accepts gays, ours does NOT.

why would you try to force others to accept you, who do not accept you, then there are plenty of people who DO accept you? that's like the pope trying to force his way into a satanic cult. odds are, the pope is not wanted there, but is PLENTY welcome at ANY catholic church.

correct me if I'm wrong.

At 7/7/06 03:31 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote:

Second marriage is a state administered function not local and not federal. This is why there is a STATE licensing fee.

But, the right to marry should be controlled by the federal level of government, and administered by the state level. But, meh, that idea's confusing, and, most people would think inneficient - I see your point, but honestly, it leaves a divided nation (as far as the homosexual community is concerned) for it to be a state descision.

there is actually a good reason for it. culture changes from state to state. try going to an Amish church and telling them they have to marry gays. to be that would be utterly silly.

personally, If i was gay, i would MOVE to a state that allows gay marriage.

It's silly how people fight for the most frivolous of things.

Personally I don't see a difference, lets see.. you go to the state and get a civil union, then go to a church that performs gay marriage and get married. as opposed to the whole forcing the government to waste their time and effort to allow gay marriage. is there a difference?

Finally, a state officially says no. Let's make our way out west and start a new wave.

At 7/7/06 11:27 PM, DarthTomato wrote: the church I go to has been labeled a "hate group" about a year or so back because a pair of gay men were turned away by the pastor.

I thought church was a place for REDEMPTION. Churches have seminars to attempt to transform homosexual men and women to heterosexual men and women. But, your church obviously denies those of whom it feels it cannot help.

he turned them away, then they got all their gay friends to march with him to try and force their way into the church, which failed... miserably, when the men of the church stood in front of the door and refused to let them pass,

Blocking the entrance to a doorway at a public facility is against the law. I feel like reporting their ignorance. Hmm, Christians breaking the law, versus gays being homosexual? ORLY?

which led to... you guessed it, them trying to have our small church labeled as a hate group, which oddly enough has multiple ethnicities, no problems, and we all go by the bible, and not this "purpose driven life" book.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with your church. It sounds like you have a SLIGHT problem with these gays. Also, to be a true Christian, by Biblical standards, you must LIVE like a Christian, not just get saved and assume your position in heaven, while you shrouder your lies and deceipt in Christ. I'm sure EVERYBODY in your church doesn't ATTEMPT to abide by the Bible.

I never have understood why people would run around professing to be "born against christians" after reading that book and not once picking up a bible.

Because of shit like that. They're not 100% against the morals the bible offers (unless you're homosexual, it would fee it's a TINGE bit degrading to be declined all the heavens and the earth because you're attracted to the same sex, no?) rather, they, and myself alike are tired of people only being Christians on Sunday. Christianity is a religion cpmposed of 99% hippocritts; why not accept one more?

I'm not trying to say my church's beliefs should be the basis of all things, but people shouldn't try to force their beliefs on others. there are plenty of churches out there that accepts gays, ours does NOT.

Then what kind of church is your church? "Before we can allow you to receive Christ, or, alternatively, enjoy and help spread the word of Christ, you MUST not be homosexual. Oh, you are? Too bad. Go to one of the OTHER churches to seek forgiveness." That's exactly the picture your church is painting to the public.

why would you try to force others to accept you, who do not accept you, then there are plenty of people who DO accept you? that's like the pope trying to force his way into a satanic cult. odds are, the pope is not wanted there, but is PLENTY welcome at ANY catholic church.

They're not trying to force themselves on anyone, they're angry and appalled at the way they were treated. And quite frankly, you can't blame them in the slightest bit for feeling that way. A church claims to offer salvation, and they are turned down for what you consider an "immoral" lifestyle, yet how many members of your church have tattoos? Smoke? Drink for other than religious occasions. Gamble? Use vulgarity? Have theived?

And you're comparison is in no way related. Your statement reads:
Christianity:Christianity::Satanism:Christ
ianity
You're comparing the Pope, the most religious worldwide figure, to a homosexual couple. The two entities themself are not similiar in the slightest bit.

correct me if I'm wrong.

I beleive I have.

At 7/7/06 11:37 PM, DarthTomato wrote:

Personally I don't see a difference, lets see.. you go to the state and get a civil union, then go to a church that performs gay marriage and get married. as opposed to the whole forcing the government to waste their time and effort to allow gay marriage. is there a difference?

The problem is that civil unions as they are called have less rights and priviledges than regulare marriage. That is the issue. Most people fighting for gay marriage are fighting for a civil union that legally is identical to heterosexual marriage and that it is set up so that it will permanently be that way. The simplest means to this would be to allow homosexuals to get married under laws existing for heterosexuals. I agree that no church should be forced to marry people against their doctrines. If I ever become a believer in a particular faith, only then will it become my business what members of my church do.

At 7/7/06 11:37 PM, DarthTomato wrote: there is actually a good reason for it. culture changes from state to state. try going to an Amish church and telling them they have to marry gays. to be that would be utterly silly.

To an Amish heterosexual, yes, but to the one-in-ten-billion chance of an Amish homosexual, no.
And there is a seperation of church and state in the U.S. So, being Amish should be no different from being Catholic, furthermore, neither of them should have a say in the matter using personal, religious reasons.

personally, If i was gay, i would MOVE to a state that allows gay marriage.

And that's right, how? Real-estate differst from state-to-state. You can make somebody MOVE to a state that allows gay marriage just because of financial reasons! THAT is unconstitutional!

It's silly how people fight for the most frivolous of things.

It's not FRIVOLOUS when you must be married in many instances to receive financial support, via independent agencies or the government. It's also not frivolous when you know deep-down that you are a homosexual, concerned with equality. You can't tell me now that there is a system of equality in this country about homosexuality.

Personally I don't see a difference, lets see.. you go to the state and get a civil union, then go to a church that performs gay marriage and get married. as opposed to the whole forcing the government to waste their time and effort to allow gay marriage. is there a difference?

Yeah, it's fair to make a homosexual drive halfway across the fucking nation to get married, when if a heterosexual wants, he can call a priest, pastor, etc., and do it in his backyard the very next day. And denying equality is what's making this so long-and-drawn-out.
So no, it's not fair at all.

At 7/7/06 11:59 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: So no, it's not fair at all.

Rainmaker, you are simlpy wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with this situation because it isn't a comparison between two equal groups, one of which is disadvantaged. We have one huge majority with a millenia-long established tradition and a small minority which wishes to completely redefine that tradition-- purely for the reason of making it more convenient for them to participate in it.

Nothing prevents homosexuals from getting married. However, "marriage" is a tradition that unifies a man and a woman. Sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. The option is still completely open for everyone who wishes to participate in it.

"Gay Marriage" is not actually marriage. It completely redefines the form and function of marriage, and most notably, ties it to a specific sexual orientation (and by implication, sexual acts). This would completely destroy the actual history and intentions of marriage, instead turning it into a tax break and convenience for a minority who want to pretend that they are the majority.

If you want to have sex with another man, or with another woman, you're free to do so. However, that does not mean you should get your own special version of marriage.

If everyone has free access to a local Apple orchard, does it make sense for "Apple" to be redefined as "Orange" just because a couple local people love to make orange juice, not apple juice?

At 7/7/06 03:31 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: But, the right to marry should be controlled by the federal level of government, and administered by the state level. But, meh, that idea's confusing, and, most people would think inneficient - I see your point, but honestly, it leaves a divided nation (as far as the homosexual community is concerned) for it to be a state descision.

However, states that can make their own laws and regulations relatively independent of a central government was one of the fundamental ideas behind the USA. I'm not saying it was a GOOD idea, because in general it's not a particularly great idea, but it is one of the ones your country was founded on, so go with it.

At 7/8/06 12:40 AM, Draconias wrote: Rainmaker, you are simlpy wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with this situation because it isn't a comparison between two equal groups, one of which is disadvantaged. We have one huge majority with a millenia-long established tradition and a small minority which wishes to completely redefine that tradition-- purely for the reason of making it more convenient for them to participate in it.

Well, if marriage is needed for financial gain in a homosexual relationship, why is it not to be supported? You are correct about the fairness situation, but financially, it is unjust.

Nothing prevents homosexuals from getting married. However, "marriage" is a tradition that unifies a man and a woman. Sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. The option is still completely open for everyone who wishes to participate in it.

Is marriage so much a tradition as it is a mockery now? People marry, divorce, re-marry, re-divorce; NOT to say homosexuals wouldn't do the same, but to try to uphold the standard of marriage in modern times, I don't feel is possible, especially when there are marriages to nature of most LasVegas marriages.

"Gay Marriage" is not actually marriage. It completely redefines the form and function of marriage, and most notably, ties it to a specific sexual orientation (and by implication, sexual acts). This would completely destroy the actual history and intentions of marriage, instead turning it into a tax break and convenience for a minority who want to pretend that they are the majority.

It is a minority, but minorities have always been accepted in this country. Affirmative action, for minorities, no taxation on foreign citizens. Granted, they do not come close to a majority in any way on the pending situation, but if all minorities were not accepted simply for not being 51% of the population, then a lot of the standards we set today would have to be re-evaluated.

If you want to have sex with another man, or with another woman, you're free to do so. However, that does not mean you should get your own special version of marriage.

Meh, you got me beat on that one. PASS!
However, I will say, that if an altered form of marriage is needed to restore equal financial opportunity for homosexual couples, so be it.

If everyone has free access to a local Apple orchard, does it make sense for "Apple" to be redefined as "Orange" just because a couple local people love to make orange juice, not apple juice?

No, but it could, in theory, be redifined as "orange" juice for the minority who wish it be - not for the group as a whole. Granted, if marriage between homosexuals was deemed permissive in every state, it probably, in definiton, would be the same as heterosexual marriage. But, what's wrong with redifining something, when it hurts no one, grants financial opportunity for all, regardless of size, and adds a modern twist on a practice which has long since been viewed as not so sacred?

At 7/8/06 12:40 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 7/7/06 11:59 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: So no, it's not fair at all.

Rainmaker, you are simlpy wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with this situation because it isn't a comparison between two equal groups, one of which is disadvantaged. We have one huge majority with a millenia-long established tradition and a small minority which wishes to completely redefine that tradition-- purely for the reason of making it more convenient for them to participate in it.

Completely redefine? Isn't there a bit of hyperbole. It would still be between two partners. You seem to be stuck on the one man one woman part, and forgetting the rest of the definition.

Nothing prevents homosexuals from getting married. However, "marriage" is a tradition that unifies a man and a woman. Sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. The option is still completely open for everyone who wishes to participate in it.

The overwhelming majority of states don't allow homosexuals to participate, unless you are talking about participating by having a ceremony that legally amounts to a hill of beans. Of course, you are referring to the fact that homosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex, which obviously is pointless for them.

"Gay Marriage" is not actually marriage. It completely redefines the form and function of marriage, and most notably, ties it to a specific sexual orientation (and by implication, sexual acts). This would completely destroy the actual history and intentions of marriage, instead turning it into a tax break and convenience for a minority who want to pretend that they are the majority.

The history and intentions of marriage you say? First, which culture are you referring to? Up until quite recently, marriage had little to do with love or partnerships. For elites and even what you could call petti bourgiousie, for lack of a better term, marriage was about contracts and alliances. For rulers, it was basically a form of treaty. Instead of using paper, you merged ruling families through marriage. Land and property were also traded through this arrangement, hence the tradition of the dowry, which still carries on today through the tradition of the bride's parents paying for the wedding. Often times, these people didn't know each other before their wedding day. Should we bring that tradition back?

In indian and even Muslim cultures, polygamy was allowed, especially among elites. Many muslim leaders even disobeyed the prohibitiion on having more than four wives. There were two main reasons for this: 1) The above about alliances. 2) Being able to maintain a large number of wives was a demonstration of opulence and hence power.

Meanwhile, throughout the early middle ages through the early 1200's, most european peasants and serfs didn't get married. Why? They didn't have property. There were even many cases of peasants hooking up for extended periods of time and splitting up. The church only decided to start enforcing marriage as a means of consolidating power.

The point of this little lecture is that marriage has siginificantly changed over the past millenium. It is not the same institution it was 1000 years ago. Many aspects of it have changed. You have presented no reason beyond people's strict adherence to tradition as
the only reason why it shouldn't evolve further. Today, marriage is about two people, not two or more families. It is about sharing love and life. The issue of property has become secondary to it. It has become about a recognition of a relationship between two people, not their families, and about providing those in relationships with those rights. You don't want them getting married in churches, fine, but don't use this an excuse to deny two people legal rights, such as being able to make decisions for one another in times of crisis, just because you are so hung up on a tradition that has dramatically changed over your grand "millenium."

If you want to have sex with another man, or with another woman, you're free to do so. However, that does not mean you should get your own special version of marriage.

Why is it special? Is it because it involves two people of the same gender instead of one? There would be no significant difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage with an infertile partner. They would have the same rights, the same priviledges, and the same obligations. It's the anti gay marriage crowd that wants to create something totally different.

If everyone has free access to a local Apple orchard, does it make sense for "Apple" to be redefined as "Orange" just because a couple local people love to make orange juice, not apple juice?

No, it doesn't, but your case doesn't remotely make sense as people aren't trying to create a new marriage but extend it to homosexuals. A more appropriate case would be this for you town. The majority of the towns people like straight apple juice, freshly squeezed from the apple with nothing added to it. Now, there is a group of people who like adding a small amount of cinamon to their apple juice, just enough to slightly alter the taste. Upon hearing of this, the majority raises a huge commotion because apple juice has traditionally been fresh squeezed, and they refuse to call this new blend apple juice and refuse to let anyone else drink it, even though allowing this small group to have their apple juice would in no wy preven the majority from having their original apple juice. Now, does it make sense not to call the new drink apple juice because it has a sprinkling of cinamon in it?

People just don't want gays to get married. Maybe they feel that marriage is a sacred union. Or maybe they just think that it's weird. But the gay lobbies' civil rights and victimhood campaign just won't work because the average American just doesn't want it to happen and it isn't as big an issue as gays make it. I don't think you are going to convince anyone that marriage isn't sacred or that gay marriage isn't weird who already feels that way. I don't see why they can't be happy with an unofficial ceremony and just drop it. I mean, they still get to plan a wedding, and I've always thought that's what gays really want.

Well, more gay marraiges means less child molesters/pedafiles, and I have homophobia so, I'd rather have them to their own kinda then touchin up on people at Wal-Mart

At 7/7/06 02:08 PM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 7/7/06 01:55 PM, Elfer wrote: They didn't ban it, they ruled that they didn't yet allow it.

A similar ruling was made in Canada shortly before it was legalised.

The main thing is that Gays can no longer get married in New York State. Thats what I was getting at. Plus the headline in the Buffalo Evening News said "New York Bars Same-Sex Marriage".

They can still get married, they just don't have the same right and shit as a woman-man marrage

At 7/8/06 12:40 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 7/7/06 11:59 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: So no, it's not fair at all.

Rainmaker, you are simlpy wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with this situation because it isn't a comparison between two equal groups, one of which is disadvantaged. We have one huge majority with a millenia-long established tradition and a small minority which wishes to completely redefine that tradition-- purely for the reason of making it more convenient for them to participate in it.

First of all, since when was the size of the groups involved validation for one group to be discriminated against by another group? Slavery was a millenia-long established tradition too, does that mean that it should be allowed? Marriage has already been redefined, it used to be soley a legal and financial bondage between two families, having nothing to do with the feelings of the two people being married. The only reason they HAD to be a man and a woman, was so they could legitimately continue the blood line. If two men or two women were bonded, it would be pointless from a buisness perspective because they would need an outsider in order to have children. This outsider could then threaten the two family's union by claiming that they were entitled to part of their finaces since they concieved the child/ren. Since now the concept of marriage is to legaly bind two people in love, having nothing to do with the gender of those involved, Gay-marriage does not redefine the concept of marriage.

Nothing prevents homosexuals from getting married. However, "marriage" is a tradition that unifies a man and a woman. Sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. The option is still completely open for everyone who wishes to participate in it.

"Gay Marriage" is not actually marriage. It completely redefines the form and function of marriage, and most notably, ties it to a specific sexual orientation (and by implication, sexual acts). This would completely destroy the actual history and intentions of marriage, instead turning it into a tax break and convenience for a minority who want to pretend that they are the majority.

Like i said, the form and function of marriage has already changed, and it is now to legally bind two people in love, whether or not they are of the same gender does not change the fact that they are in love and deserve to have their union be recognized as legal. Also as i said, majority has nothing to do with the gaining of civil rights.

If you want to have sex with another man, or with another woman, you're free to do so. However, that does not mean you should get your own special version of marriage.

It is not a special version, it is simply the same version as should be rightfully protected by the U.S. Constitution, which declares equal judgement in the eyes of the law and protection from wrongful discrimination.

If everyone has free access to a local Apple orchard, does it make sense for "Apple" to be redefined as "Orange" just because a couple local people love to make orange juice, not apple juice?

No, that would still just make apple juice, it might be called "orange" but the taste would be the same, so that metaphor is just retarded. A better, and more encompassing one would be; If most people thought the right way to see the world was in black and white, but other people saw in color, would it be fair to cut out the other people's eyes just because they can't change the way they see?

At 7/7/06 11:40 PM, kidray76 wrote: Finally, a state officially says no. Let's make our way out west and start a new wave.

You know a fair amount of states said "No" to gay marriage in 2004, right?

JudgeMeHarshX you silly little boy

the bible says homosexual's will not inherit god's kingdom. GOD hates gays who are we to judge god case closed.

At 7/10/06 01:50 PM, troubles1 wrote: the bible says homosexual's will not inherit god's kingdom. GOD hates gays who are we to judge god case closed.

And by deciding that God must hate gays (even though the bible says no such thing) are you not judging God?

At 7/10/06 01:50 PM, troubles1 wrote: the bible says homosexual's will not inherit god's kingdom. GOD hates gays who are we to judge god case closed.

But how do you know what God wants? America is suppost to not blend politics and religion together, so the religious reasons to ban gay marraige should not be the driving force of it's illigalization.

This is just a ploy to have homosexuality seem more of a legitimate lust. If they're allowed to marry it'll make it seem less disgusting.

They should just quit bitching and try and push for civil unions.

At 7/7/06 11:51 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: a bunch of stuff that won't fit withing the 6,500 character limit

Redemption can only be had by those who wish it. These men were openly gay, with absolutely no desire to change it. 2 men being openly gay in church, rejecting the the passages after the pastor pointed them out, thats a sign that they didn't want redemption.

he turned them away, then they got all their gay friends to march with him to try and force their way into the church, which failed... miserably, when the men of the church stood in front of the door and refused to let them pass,

had they been wanting to change their ways, as opposed to trying to force the church to change their ways, I could see letting them in, but to try and force your way into a church, that has certain beliefs, and they believe that your lifestyle is immoral and do not want their children to think that it is fine to be gay and hold other men's hands and be a fruitcake, that is wrong.

We have our beliefs, and whether everyone follows them is on them, We don't police each other constantly to make sure everyone is doing as they should. we also don't throw people out who mess up, but those who want to go against the teachings of the church, and expect the church to overlook their transgressions.. well... that's about retarded. People want others to change their ways just so they can be accepted by them. I'm sure there are PLENTY of mosques that I wouldn't be allowed to go into, being christian. but should i organize a band of christians to storm the mosque and force them to let us attend? certainly not. should I be allowed in if i wish to become a muslim and follow the koran? yes. should i make them ignore certain parts of the koran to suit my needs? no!

being attracted does not make you gay, sexuality in the bible only has 1 limit. that you must be married. and to be married a man needs a woman, not another man. god made adam and eve, not adam and steve. some may say that being gay is natural because some animals do it, but some animals also eat their young, and you don't see people eating their children for dinner, DO YOU? Didn't think so. if you ate your children you would be labeled either insane or cold hearted

our church goes by the bible, not by the "politically correct" bible. When people enter the church politics is left at the door. If the bible says it's wrong, then we consider it wrong. If a gay man comes to church for salvation and looking to follow the bible, we would GLADLY let him in, but, a gay man coming to church to hear the portions of the bible that he wants to hear is only going to lead to trouble and politics. EVENTUALLY the pastor would reach a passage like this,:

Romans 1:26-27, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

and then the trouble would start when the gays stand up and begin shouting that the preacher is trying to teach hate/whatever. It's happened before when a pair of teenagers jumped up and told the pastor he "needed to keep it real" when he read passages about the sins of being drunk, having sex outside of wedlock, and worshipping idols, which seem to be rather commonplace events among the youth today. needless to say, the pastor didn't agree with the statement to keep it real, and asked them what their friday and saturday nights usually consist of. when they told em, pretty much EVERY detail, the pastor simply bowed his head, shook it, and asked them why they attend church. the teens basically told him, "so they can get to heaven when they die." the pastor asked them to stay after church, but they refused, saying they have better things to do than listen to someone's opinion on god. needless to say they don't attend anymore.

many churches that i used to attend preach that, basically, people can do whatever they please in life, and just before death, say a few words and be ushered off to heaven and all of its glory. God is not a machine, He gets the final call. you could be the best person in the world, but of god doesn't find you worthy, its off to hell you go. Yes it is possible for sinners to go to heaven, we all sin, but a few words and sitting on a pew on sunday won't do it for you.

but, I'm only human, so therefore i could be wrong, maybe god is a machine somewhere out there who wants us to chant a few words before we die. but, i somehow don't think so.

for for athiests, don't try pushing your "there is no god" rhetoric on me, the way i see it, If there is no god, then the Bible helped me live a good life, if there is a god, great! if there is a god, you're in for it.

Anyway, this is not within the rights of any organized government body. Violating the rights of any individual is wrong.

At 7/10/06 04:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Anyway, this is not within the rights of any organized government body. Violating the rights of any individual is wrong.

According to the Constitution marraige isn't a right.

But otherwise, I don't give a shit what happens as long as it doesn't bother me.

THANK THE LORD, THE WONDERFUL HETERO LORD!!!

all thats been in the politics section is the same old stuff stop making these topics about gays.

At 7/10/06 05:36 PM, mikeysevilarmy wrote: all thats been in the politics section is the same old stuff stop making these topics about gays.

Get Out of the Politics section if your just going to bitch about the topics being made, shithead.

At 7/6/06 06:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: MORE GAY MARRIAGE! Not only does it mean more women for straight men, it also means less problems with estates as well as more stable families AND recognition of the equal rights of ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

I like your style dude. Equal rights for everyone.