which is more important to you?

[WalterMitty]

option 2.

im strongly opposed to any kind of discrimination.

[opebo]

Agreed.  good poll waltermitty

[??????????]

Option 1. I don't care what the perverts do in private. Just don't subject me to that disgusting lifestyle.

[KEmperor]

Taxes effect me much more than if two gay people want to get "married."

[dazzleman]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

[A18]

Neither one should be considered discrimination, but option 1, and that's the top that's much closer to being discrimination.

[WalterMitty]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same rights as married straight people.

and the reason they are denied such rights is bigotry.  pure and simple.

[??????????]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same rights as married straight people.

and the reason they are denied such rights is bigotry.  pure and simple.

Sexual lifestyle choices should not be protected or acknowledged by federal law.

[Alcon]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same rights as married straight people.

and the reason they are denied such rights is bigotry.  pure and simple.

Sexual lifestyle choices should not be protected or acknowledged by federal law.

Then why exactly do we have heterosexual marriage?

[??????????]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same rights as married straight people.

and the reason they are denied such rights is bigotry.  pure and simple.

Sexual lifestyle choices should not be protected or acknowledged by federal law.

Then why exactly do we have heterosexual marriage?

I should have said "abnormal sexual lifestyles". But the purpose for hetero sexual marriage is of course to provide a STABLE enviroment for child rearing and various other legal issues.

[nclib]

What about infertile heterosexual couples?

[??????????]

What about infertile heterosexual couples?

They would be good for adoption if they wanted to. But most likely they originally got married to HAVE children and later found out that either one or the other had no ability to have children.

[Jake]

What about infertile heterosexual couples?

Why do you use red herrings like this? Obviously, whether someone is fertile or not does not keep them from offering the child a mother and father.  

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

what about people who marry intending to be DINKs and have no desire at all to have kids, like one of my aunt's? She got her tubes tied before she was married, so obviously she has no desire to have kids.

[PBrunsel]

Taxes effect me more than an oxymoron like "gay marriage".

[nclib]

To answer the poll question, gay marriage. (though neither the highest tax rates nor gay marriage affect me directly)

[A18]

Taxes effect me more than an oxymoron like "gay marriage".

Why the wink?

[opebo]

Then why exactly do we have heterosexual marriage?

I should have said "abnormal sexual lifestyles". But the purpose for hetero sexual marriage is of course to provide a STABLE enviroment for child rearing and various other legal issues.

Heterosexual marriage only occasionally provides this.  The most predictive factor for a positive environment for child rearing is the economic situation of the parent(s), not their sexuality.

[A18]

Would you allow people with other disorders to adopt? How about bipolar or multiple personalities?

[dazzleman]

The top tax rate.

I don't consider the absence of gay marriage to be discrimination in any case.

WalterMitty, I think you're being overly politically correct.  Think about what "discrimination" really means.  We all discriminate every day, with decisions we make, and discrimination is sometimes legitimate.  We discriminate every time we hire one person over another, every time we choose one friend over another.  Discrimination is an integral part of life, and what matter is the basis on which the discrimination is being made.  Some is legitimate and some is not.

homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same rights as married straight people.

and the reason they are denied such rights is bigotry.  pure and simple.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I think the male/female mix is central to the concept of marriage, and we shouldn't change the definition.  The overall intention of marriage was to facilitate the rearing of children, which is not an issue in homosexual relationships since they can't produce children.

I think that if a gay couple wants to commit to each other, nobody should stand in their way, but it's not marriage.  And they can will their money, designate beneficiaries for their defined-contribution retirement plans, etc. as they wish.

[Alcon]

Would you allow people with other disorders to adopt? How about bipolar or multiple personalities?

First of all, I'm not aware of any notable medical or psychological association that considers homosexuality a disorder.

Secondly, homosexuality does not cause extreme behavior swings as bipolar and multiple personality would. You chose two disorders with severe psychological problems as if homosexuality would result in the same behavior as bipolar or multiple personality, which is obviously absurd.

[John Dibble]

The overall intention of marriage was to facilitate the rearing of children, which is not an issue in homosexual relationships since they can't produce children.

Actually, I've read that marriage was originally brought about more to establish a man's claim to a woman, like property(which let's face it, way back when they were more like slaves than equal partners). Now, that's not saying the purpose now isn't what you said - it just seems to me the purpose has been changing over time to suit the needs of the time.

Of course, I don't really see why the 'rearing of children' aspect is so important, because people who don't want kids can still get married.

EDIT - I voted top tax rate, btw. I'll worry about gay marriage only when I'm able to put food on the table, and an ultra high tax rate isn't gonna help me do that.

[ian]

Gay marriage.  Economic issues really matter much less to me than social issues.
And your stance really surprises me Walter, esp. since you are an economic Republican.
Do social matters mean more to you than economic?

[WalterMitty]

Gay marriage.  Economic issues really matter much less to me than social issues.
And your stance really surprises me Walter, esp. since you are an economic Republican.
Do social matters mean more to you than economic?

eh.  not usually.

i just hate bigotry. 

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Option 1. I don't care what the perverts do in private. Just don't subject me to that disgusting lifestyle.

How exactly is two people who love each other and presumably have nothing to do with you and your lifestyle 'subjecting' you to it?

Oh, and being gay is not a conscious choice.