Gay men and women should have the same rights

December 6, 2010 civil rights for same-sex marriage is the denial of human rights for children. All human beings are created equally from 1 mother and 1 father, this is the natural way to create children.

But same-sex couples are creating children in a "technological" -- frozen first and other insane ways that is causing their children to be and become retarded and sickly humans. An now the facts are in, scientific evidence. UC Davis studies show that San Francisco has the highest cases of retardation in the ENTIRE WORLD due to the lifestyle of its citizens.

Same-sex livestyle is a Crime Against Nature which means a Crime Against Life and Life has nothing to do with "love" Mr. Gore. As you continue your fight for Gay and Lesbian "equality" you are denying infant children Human rights. Every child has to the human right to attach to the breast of his mother at birth. Do we take kittens or puppys aways from their mother? No! why? Because it is inhumane. So why are you supporting an action that is inhumane treatment towards infant children.

Mother's and adoptive mother's breast are the best and same-sex male marriage is the greatest act of discrimination, neglect and pure hatred towards the physical health and well being of an infant child.

you're a chill dude al. keep up the good work! although i don't agree with your saying that we should promote a married lifestyle (marriage is definitely not for EVERYONE) and that non-marriage leads to "promiscuity"/that "promiscuity can lead to problems". so can marriage! people should just be allowed to do whatever they want to; whether its having lot of "promiscuous" sex, or marrying your gay boyfriend. the government needn't be involved in that type of thing.

Contracts? Hospital visiting rights? Whatever... I want to know that the man that put me through college, waiting tables in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has access to my SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS if I die tomorrow, just as my wife would if I were straight. Passing on my social security benefits is a privilege that straight people have that I don't because I'm gay and that is evidence that I do not want special rights, I want the same rights that everyone else has.

The problem is the legality of gay marriage. And, from a legal point of view, marriage is a contract. Sexual orientation does not prohibit one from entering into a contract. So why the controversy? Bigotry.

How great to hear our president have such a compassionate and clear perspective on this subject, oh, that's right, bush and cheney stole that from him. The religious right has also stolen these basic rights by adding fear to the equation. We are only asking for basic, equal rights. In NY that adds up to 1300 things that we are not able to access, as was stated when the governor decreed that marriages outside of our state had to be recognized. We are not looking for a religious blessing, most gay and lesbian couples live outside of organized religion anyway. We are looking for the right to contract for life with another person that we love. When mainstream america sees it for what it is and stops listening to the hate and fear, they will see us for what we are, people standing next to them in the bank paying mortgages and taxes, trying to make ends meet in a tough economic climate, just like them!

i like how some people claim marriage isnt entertainment and how it is more than that. yes to some people it is something much more, a meeting of friends and family to celebrate the partnership with the one you love. if that was so why do so many people go to the extent that they do in buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of decorations, thats more for the entertainment part than the loving part. someone could get married in a cardboard box and have it mean more than someone who spent 100,000 on their wedding.

and lets use the classic example of hollywood and movie stars getting married for less than a couple days or marrying for money. frankly what some people do to the sanctity of marriage is sick, and thats some heterosexual couples. divorce rate is on the rise and you can get married multiple times. how does that make sense shouldnt it only really happen once? marriage is turning into a joke, quite frankly and i dont think homosexuals are going to ruin marriage i think the heterosexuals are doing a fine enough job with that.

no one is perfect: homosexual or heterosexual. [sex can be on a higher level for some people but to be honest its about feeling good. and there is NOTHING wrong with that. sex is a good thing and it really has nothing to do with MARRIAGE anyways. i dont know why people are bringing that into this.] everyone makes mistakes and no one can really tell how long they will remain in love with someone, but ideally if someone gets married they should know that that person is the one. i dont think sexual orientation has a part in that decision, people love people for different reasons.

i personally would never get married even if i had the right. i dont feel like being part of an institution that doesnt want me to begin with. i understand why people want to me treated equally and the more power to them, but who wants to be like everyone else. i dont need a marriage certificate to tell me who i love.

I love you Al Gore! Please have my babies!

...

*coughs* Now that that's out of the system, I have to say I can't agree more. There's nothing immoral about gay love, and no one has the right to impose their beliefs on other people's lives. Gay love affects no one but the lovers themselves.

My partner and I bought a home to retire in and it gives me chills to know that some day one of us will be telling the other good-bye for the last time.
Knowing, as I do, if I'm the one being left behind, that I can be told to leave her side; not to be allowed to share in what we expected from each other; not to be able to hold her hand one last time or share a last kiss.
Yes, this is for real! We have no rights, even then.
Beyond this, our home could be taken from me, our cars, our furniture, our personal belongings, our checking accounts. They could contest our insurance policies.
Someone could come into our home and go through everything and throw away what they don't want and sell or keep the rest and I have no legal leg to stand on.
Unless something is done, and soon to be able to legalize us!
We're just "normal" older Americans, that love each other. Look beyond the fact that we both just happen to be women.
Thank you for your honesty.
You should be our President!

OH MY GOODNESS! Thank you for bringing up promiscuity! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK! You are right, promoting equal rights for GLBTs is promoting monogamy are therefore promoting better sexual health and well being! There are PLENTY of conservative gays how do want to wait until marriage/unity to have sex, but shouldn't they only have to wait until they are ready whether than everyone else?
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Oh, and I missed you running this presidential race :-(

I agree with Al Gore that homosexuals should have the same choices as heterosexuals. The idea that a civil union is between a man and a woman is paralleling with the bible. Considering we live in a country where there is Freedom of Religion, that idea should not be applied to individuals sexual orientation. Love is an emotion that can not be determined by sexual orientation.

Thank you for your intelligent and insightful input, cousy14. Your wonderful economy of words is only surpassed by your complete absence of reason. Though brief, your statement speaks volumes with regard to the dangers of breeding within one's own family line. It can't be easy, typing while wearing a hood.

You are all fags....no the government should not allow you to marry because you are ruining this country and this world...n one loves you go kill yourself

Thank you, President Gore - and I call you that because you did win in 2000.

As for you stardate, if you don't believe in or support same-sex marriage, then don't have one and don't attend one if you are invited; but don't you dare deny others their rights just because it doesn't fit your narrow, fringe, revisionist fantasy of the history of marriage. Your life will go on whether or not two men or two women are allowed to get married and any heterosexual marriage that can be undermined by the legalization of same-sex marriage is doomed to begin with and it can't be blamed on the gays.

statistics on european countries where Gay marriages has been in place since the 90s , show that around only 5% of gays get married. The divorce rate for gay men in these marriages is over 1 and half time higher than heterosexual marriages. For lesbians it is over 2 X higher. We also know that child abuse is higher in non biological homes. It will not be too long before children who have been raised in gay household will start to sue for their own right to have a mother and a father. Wait an see !!! Mr Gore should start to create a new video to defend the right of these kids.

Why of course Al gore is right anyone with a working brain can seee that he is right

well said sir...Well said.

I'd just like to add, that i voted for you and shed many tears when the Bush Despotism overturned the popular vote...We Americans DO know what we want - though it seems that we aren't up to fighting for it...

I completely agree! Who are we to judge or tell people not do this or that just because of their sexual orientation. It's basically discrimination. We always point fingers at racists, well isn't this sort of the same thing? Again, who are we to judge anybody because of their sexual orientation, race, etc...we should just try to understand one another and let people LIVE!

I am glad there are people out there ready to right for equality and human rights. Simply because a man or woman happens to be attracted to the same sex does not mean they should not have the right to fall in love and get married just as heterosexual males and females can.

This is a fight for civil rights. I believe it is time for us to stop being ignorant, and begin accepting people and the way they are. After all, we are all extremely unique to each other. One's sexuality is simply an additional difference that makes us human...different and unique.

I agree. I never understood why the goverment should interfer with the daily lives of others. I think marriage is a personal decision to begin with and it shouldn't be judged by anyone else but ourselves and our partners.

Kudos, friend.
We say we have equal rights for everyone, but only when it's socialy acceptable. Well, being gay doesn't hurt anyone so...
Not everyone is christian, so thats stupid to make laws based on it, seperation of church and state. But I think they should have Civil unions, because the government shouldn't be able make the church do things it's against.
The majority rules, but that doesn't mean the minority is ignored.

I completely agree on this especially the point made on monogamy. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and a union between two people. The fact that it is an inherently religious institution makes me feel that it has absolutely NO place being debated on the house floor. To waste time and tax payer dollars to debate this topic, to me, is nothing short of ridiculous.

based on previous comments written above, it is clear that gay marriages is seen by many as a door for group marriages and poligamy. Mr. Gore's argument of commitment and non promiscuous lifestyle is in my opinion does not hold much value. There is serious diconnect between his words and the reality. The whole thing is very much deceptive.

Thank you for saying that.
I think that everything that you said was right on the button. *thumbs up*

Sundowner is an idiot. First of all, you have bad grammar. Second of all, try crawling out from whatever rock you've been living under and read a book based on actual scientific evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Not only do they engage in a HUGE amount of homosexual behavior but also have one of the lowest amounts of any inter-species murder. Also, Lesbians have the lowest amount of HIV infections of any sexual preference group

yeah i agree well cause we should'nt worry about that we should worry about the war so i agree

Sundowner, perhaps you ought to do a bit more research before you present fiction as fact. You said homosexuality is not practiced by non-human animals. Well here's a Wikipedia article that states otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behavior
While I don't consider Wikipedia to be proof on its own it is a good place to start.

Wrong? This speak is wrong. God abhors homosexuality, read Romans 1 - it is a sin "unto death." Sexual orientation? The sexual act of homosexuals is not practised by any other animal. This avenue was not meant for that - hence the physical problems that homosexuals develop, injuries, disease. Stop making excuses for a wrong.

Adair, while I do not personally wish to enter a form of group marriage, I fully see your point. However, I think gay marriage will become legal in this country LONG before polygamy will be. If you are looking to radically change the institution of marriage in this country, gay marriage would be a good starting point.

I firmly believe that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people should have the right to file joint income taxes...I mean, get married, just like heterosexual people, if that's what they want.

There's one thing that I don't completely agree with in Al Gore's video though. He says, "two people". Anything else is "promiscuity".

I'd like to see a law that allows more than just two people to enter into an agreement of love and sharing if they're willing to become a family for the rest of their lives. Three or more people can love each other without cheating. It takes very good communication skills and a lot of use of those skills at the beginning and throughout, but then again so does a healthy two person marriage.

Monogomy is great for a lot of people, but please don't discriminate against polygomy.

I think this is one of the best argument for gay rights I have ever heard. I'm totally going to use some of these points next time I discuss this with anyone.

Absolutely! Thank you Mr. Gore!

As a gay voter, here is my dream for 2009:

President: Barack Obama
Director of EPA: Al Gore
Attorney General: John Edwards
Sec. of Health & Human Services: Hillary Clinton
Sec. of State/Defense: Richardson/Biden

Dear Mr. Vice President, Sir:

I want to thank you for all you have done in your life
for Public Service. For the Planet.

Now to make such a clear statement on behalf of the
Homosexual Community for Equal rights. whew!
I can only attempt to thank you by promising to do everything I can do to promote the Health & Welfare of all Living things on This Planet, As you do,

Thank You for setting an Example.

nytheaterbug. Why do you think that hundred of thousands of couple who after trying so have children for many years are so disappointed ? How are you limiting the definition of love by having a natural family ?
There are also in laws, cousins,uncles aunts, grand parents, friends and even pets if you want.Do you think that having your own son or daughter, your own blood is just biological ? Even adopted children want to now and meet their parents or brothers and sisters if they were separated during thier childhood. For a child to be loved by his own father or mother is not just stereotipical. To believe that a "group of people" would be better I am sorry but there is a great disconnect here !!!! It is not an issue of tolerence.

YES.
YES.
YES.

I would love to see a debate between you and lesliedawn on current!

Soleit10: The real definition of family is that of a group of people that love, care about and respect each other.

To limit the definition of family as a male, and female adult, and the children is limiting the very definition of love.

Doesn't a childess hextrosexual couple represent a family? Or are they of lesser value in your world view as well?

A loving nuturing home, where a child is rasied with happiness, joy, and the right values, such as respect and tolerance of others who may be different what's really important? Or should family be reduced to biogolgical functions, and sterotypical roles?

What's worse for society, a generation rasied with values of disrepect for others that may be different? Isn't that how wars get started?

If we ask a child, would you prefer to be with your mom and dad ? or with your mom and a stepfather or your dad and a step mother ? or without your mom or without a dad ? or with a mom and her girlfriend or a dad and his boyfriend ? what do you think a child answer would be. ?
America has experienced the stepparents and fatherless families. Now we want to experience the gay families. What are we doing to our children ? Are we that selfish ?
Al Gore video feels so empty to me. It is so sad. If we want to save the environment, why d'ont we start to protect the family ?

Thank you for your Wisdom Mister Gore

stcart-SInce Adam and Eve felt shame and covered they sexual parts everyone on this planete has struggled one way or another with sexuality. No it was not an apple !!!
Their fall had to do with the misuse of love. (a lot need to be explain here). God created man and woman, (male and female). He did not create a third kind called homosexuals ! He gave us free will and we messed up. Unfortunatly Chrisitianity is not clear about what happened. Since then Men are all looking for their true masculinity and women for their true femininity. From the atome (+and -) everything exists as male and female. Two males cannot procreate, 2 females cant either. God want us to be fruitful, multiply and dominate the earth. Why who he create gay people ?
We inherit a lot form our ancestors,not only genes but also behaviors, and all kind of family traits even deseases,

I'm 20 yrs old & I don't vote. My reason is that I think our governement is contradicting on a massive level. If I would have been able to vote when you were a canidate I would have voted for you because our planet is dieing & less than 1/2 the population are takeing action to correct this problem. This is sad. I figured you would have made it law to take care of our HOME. Honestly, I think all candiates and government officials are all talk. They only take action if it involves them or family somehow. This is NOT GOOD!!! What about those who don't support the system of money? What our government lives for is wrong! What happened 2 free choice? NO MORE MONEY!!!

Gracias Mr. Gore. You are truly and inspiration. I hope others will understand too.

A couple of other things too. Why is it that straight people seem to be the experts on whether or not gay people are gay from birth or not? How could they POSSIBLY even SAY that they 'know' anything about that? This is like a white person talking about how difficult it is being black. Ridiculous. Pathetic. Gay people are gay from the start...period. GOD is who made gays gay, so why not let God bless those who find partners to love and to cherish, 'til death do they part? I'm gay, and obviously have been from birth. It's sexual ORIENTATION, not sexual PREFERENCE. So why do people try to BE God by stopping God-made unions? The second thing is this.........why are we discriminated against in the workplace, with NO protection from the Gvt, or the state? (South Carolina). My partner and I lost our jobs with AT&T because of our sexual orientation, and YES...we have a lawsuit against them because of it. We are going to have a HUGE rally'protest coming up in mid-March, and we are hoping for around 1200-1500 people there. But WHY do we even have to go to all this trouble...just to get what EVERY other person out there already has a right to do??? AT&T formed LEAGUE, which was SUPPOSE to protect gay people in thier company, so what happened to that? Now that we are taking this to the streets, with three planned rallies over the next three months, but we have decided to go one step further. NOW, we are going to raise the issue of protecting the GLBT family from work-place discrimination. WHY is this so difficult to understand that NO ONE should be treated like this? Gay people SHOULD be protected by the Constitution, but those who quote the Scriptures are the ones playing God themselves. They say being homosexual is wrong, but can't seem to explain WHY God made gays to start with, so.....they turn it around and say God did NOT make a gay person gay, they CHOSE to be gay. LOL. Yeah, right. So, these straight people have ALL the answers...all WRONG answers. It's PAST time we stood up and DEMANDED our rights, because we should have as many rights as anyone out there. Join our protest if you wish...we WILL make a difference, or we will NEVER stop. AT&T.....here we come.

When two people fall in love, and they go before God to promise each other to love, cherish, and support the other, or any vows they may say....it is good in the eyes of God. I love my partner of 11 years more and more everyday, and the same goes for him. I DO have two kids, and we BOTH love them dearly. My son-in-law's mother is a lesbian. What are the odds that these two "kids" would even be born, let alone marry each other? When I divorced my wife, the kids chose to live with thier mother, (I moved to another state and they were in school) but after High School, the oldest one moved in with my partner and I, and she loved staying with us. Two people, regardless of thier sexual orientation, that love each other, can and WILL provide a nurturing environment. I can not understand, for ANY reason, why allowing two people who are in love to marry, could possibly threaten ANY heterosexual marriages! Love is LOVE. God is ALL about love, and God made gay people, or would you say God made mistakes..therefore rendering God as NOT a God? You can't have it both ways. Either God made gay people the way they are, or God does not exist. It's very basic.

How about a Gore/Edwards ticket?

Soleil10, I honestly think that you need to check your fact and figures. What makes you think that a same sex couple will destroy a child they are allowed to adopt and raise as their own?

A so called natural family as you call it, barely exists in the United States. Thanks to divorce, most famiies are not the biologial parents, but stepparents and siblings.

Please don't twist, or put words in my mouth. What I was saying is that being raised by a loving nuruting couple (same sex or not) is the ideal for the child. That a child is always better off in a loving home, where they can have the stability of a family, of parents that love them.

Simply because a person is the biological parent of a child, doesn't make them a good parent. Or able to provide a home with loving relationships, and values.

I for one, would be happy to take a child away from an abusive home, and place that child with a same sex couple that will provide, love and care for the child.

What makes a family isn't biology, what make a family is the loving relationships, be that same sex or not.

Being a loving person who treat others well is for sure very important regardless if you are a man or a woman or what position in society you hold.

A failed marriage is very damaging for children.

Irresponsible fathers or mothers are also hurtful to their chidren..

Beside having a good family,everything else is just damage control including being raised by an homosexual couple.
In a few years we will see children reporting how much they were damaged by gay parents as well.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

You are not arguing with me that being raised by " homosexual parents" is ideal for children. You argument is that it can be as good or better than in a dysfunctional family.
The world does not have a great futur based on such vision. The stability of "homosexual families" is even less than natural families where children are with their own faher and mother.
In your scenario, all we will need in the futur is to purchase sperms and eggs and have children. So called biologial parents will disappear. Do you expect that people will be caring for these children as if they were their own blood. I don't think so.
It will become rent a child type business with the government becoming the parent.
At best homosexual families will always deny his mother or his father to a child. Do you like that scenario ?
We know the horrible consequences of fatherless homes in this country today. (80% of young people in prison do not have a father in their life) or abused children by their stepfathers.

JPinCt is right.

Love is love, and it's about the relationship between the two people involved. Their caring, love and devotion for each other.

Just because a couple is hertrosexual does't make the marriage a good one, much less a healthy relationship. Or that their children are loved.

How many deadbeat dads refuse to support the children they had from a failed marriage?? How many parents physically and/or emotional abuse their children? Are these less than perfect parents better for the child, than a loving same sex couple?

In other words, being hetrosexual doesn't make you perfect, or better than a LGBT person. Only different.

What makes the difference in my eyes at least, is the person that you are. How you treat others. The person that you strive to be. Isn't that what's most important?

I would rather see a child raised by a gay couple that I know, than by own sister, or God forbid my parents. I know that with the gay couple the child would be raised with the right values and in a loving nurturing home.

What makes a family a family is the loved shared, the caring, and the devotion to each member. Not what gender the parents are.

A wonderful play, that was made into a film really sheds light on this whole issue. It's called Torchsong Trilogy and is weill worth watching.

If we use the word love in the contest of love versus hate, we could say love is love.
If we look at love itself, they are different kinds of love and qualities of love.
A mother and a father provide very different kind of love to their children. Their children's boys or girls identities from their early age is formed in that natural environment.
There is so much information availabe on the subject. I think Al Gore should take time to really study this carefully.

Future generations are completely forgoten with his thinking. He cannot be sincere when he says that homosexual marriage will reduce promiscuity. Very few are getting married anway in countries where they could.

Soon,there will be all kind of definition of parents. A truly legal nighmare: Biological parents, adopting parents etc...etc..

No fault marriage created a multi-billion $ legal bureaucratie where so many people ae preying on broken families

Milions of people are not able to have children while millions unborn babies are aborted every year by people who did not want to have them. Is this love in your book ?

Please understand that I am not judging your family situation or your life history. I am sure you love your children.
It is not about you or me.

It should not be about our selfish rights either

Taxes benefits, health benefits can be provided through civil unions without destroying natural marriage.

In a family we experience 4 kind of loves: Love from my parents, love between me and my brothers and sisters, love from me to my parents and in the futur love with my spouse. The family is after all the school of love. It is the corner stone of society.
God is also male and female and created duality for a reason.
I would not redesign His creation.

OK lets get one thing straight. Love is love no matter if it's man/woman, man/man or woman/ woman.
I would like to address the fact that if a gay couple adopts a child or children, that they are providing a loving nurturing home for these kids who might not otherwise get an opportunity for a home. In todays society with teh divorce rate still climbing, in a hetero household where there are children divorce is likely to affect the children there too. So to say that a gay couple is more likely to split and cause issues where children have been brought in is not a fair assessment. Let me add this - I was married, and am a father of 2 children. I am also divorced and yes, GAY! I hae a loving partner who is also a father. We as parents put our families first at all times, We nurture and love our children. Someday We would like to get married. Our love is that deep and we have that commitment to one another. There is no different in my loving him. People with small minds that are not capeable of understanding only hurt themselves. The issues aren't about God - no one is competing with Him, rather we would just like to have the same rights so that we could live together and raise a family. Why shouldnt we be ablle to be afforded the same rights as a married couple i.e. pay joint taxes, heathcare etc. It's not about the reigious aspects here,, it's about the fundementals of a cohabitating unit... we should have those rights - why should our household have to pay more just because we are gay and aren't afforded the same rights as a straight marrired couple?
Lets get it together people, we are not living in the dark ages,,, why are so many people concerned what goes on between a gay couple? and and what about the phrase "don't judge lest ye be juged?" "let the one without sin cast the first stone"... I could go on but I think you get the point... people should tend to thier own lifestyles,,, I don't condem anyone cause they are straight! Why should anyone condem me for the way I am? On my judgement day, it will be between God and me, and it's then that I will have to answer for my life and mine alone.
My advice is for some people to look in your own yard before you talk about mine.
As a gay male, I would just like the right to live my life and love who I want to with out having to explain myself to anyone, why does it bother you who i choose to love anyway?

The issue is not about discrimination.
Statistic shows that very few gays marry and very small % stay together since the gay lifestyle is promiscuous in nature.

Mr Gore should worry about children who may be denied the right to a father and a mother if adopted by a gay couple.

Every one knows that the intended goal is not marriage for gays but the destruction of marriage for all.

There are natural marriages and un-natural marriage.

I would not want to compete with God on this one if I was you Mr. Gore !!!

When two people fall in love, it is special, it is something that God is all about. God IS love. I also have a very difficult time believing that God made 10% of the population by mistake. This is ridiculous to even think. God made me gay. I didn't DECIDE to be gay, because God already decided that for me. As a Christian, I thank God every day for my partner of 11 years. It's to bad my heterosexual parents couldn't have said the same thing. And Mr. Gore.....I would give anything to have you speak at our rally/protest in March, as we strike out against AT&T for sexual orientation discrimination. 4 stores were closed, and 7 people lost thier jobs because the owners were gay. This rally should be huge...we hope, with arounf 1200+ people being there. ALL supporters are more than encouraged to attend. Charlotte, NC and/or Atlanta, GA. The time has come for the LGBT community to DEMAND equality...as "guaranteed" by our Constitution!

Mr. Gore is totally right. Marriage is about commitment to the person you fall in love with.
The desire to make a life together.

To say, or imply that love exists only between hetrosexuals is arrogrant and narrow minded to say the least.

My question, is what are people who are upset about same sex marriages afraid of? What harm are these couples doing to anyone? These couples work hard, pay their taxes, do charitable works and are generally speaking an asset to their communites.

If marrage is so scared, and special, and to be only between hetrosexuals, can someone explain to me the rising divorce rate?

Same sex couples should have all the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples. The Declaration of Indepence states that "All men are created equal", nowhere does it state
"only if" you meet some arbritrary definition made by a minority faction trying to force/impose their views on the rest of us.

Thank You Mr. Gore for speaking out on such a hot controversial topic.

I agree with you Mr. Gore; I only wish that more people were like minded.

Al Gore hits it out of the park yet again. Why can't the current candidates speak so candidly? I always tell people that he should have ran for prez again on the SAME platform he did in 2000. He hit all the issues out of the park then also. I had a dream that he came out with a TV ad showing clips of his stances back then. He then says "how goofy does that 'lock box' for social security sound now?"

Right on. You're beyond amazing.

Al Gore is right....as usual. Why this man is not running for President is beyond me. As a gay man myself, I find it ridiculous to think that I can, and WAS fired from my job because I'm gay, that I can not use my partner of 11 years on my taxes, that my insurance premiums are higher for both of us because we are NOT considered a couple, and the list goes on. BTW - we ARE suing AT&T for discrimination about our jobs. We never wanted SPECIAL rights, just the constitution to be upheld saying that all men are created equal. Just give us the humanitarian rights we SHOULD have,

Stardate wrote: "I said it's about procreation AND entertainment. For homosexuals it's only the later."

What makes you think that sex for homosexuals is only for entertainment? We as humans all have a need for intimacy and love, and please dont say this is simply entertainment, it is a completely different concept.

"They don't want to marry simply because they want to love each other. They could do that without a marriage license. In fact they have been doing that for a while."
You are absolutely right. Homosexual couples can love each other without getting married. But so can heretosexual couples... then why do they want to get married? I am sure heretosexuals do not want to marry simply because they love each other too. There are many reasons why people do, such as the many benefits that come parallel with marriage, satisfying society's expectations for a *legitimate* relationship, and even a reason as trivial as looking forward to a once in a lifetime wedding and for many people, wearing a tuxedo for the first time in their lives.

To tell you the truth, I will never get married because I dont see a reason to do so. That is just me though, it doesn't mean I go bossing people around because the world does not revolve around me, and nor you.

I promise you this though, if some time in the future, benefits are involved with marriage where I live, I'll be the first one at the jewellery store.

Man, I wish you were running for president. The US needs a level-headed person like you running it.

Dear Mr. Gore,
I applaud you on making these comments. We need your voice to be heard to the powers that be to help make the change! I am a Justice of the Peace in Conn., one of a few states that provide civil unions. I too am gay. I have interviewed many gay people and couples and although they and I feel that these unions allow us some rights, they don't go far enough. We deserve to be treated equally- that is one of our rights as an American citizen, correct? What difference is it and why does it bother so many people? Who are we hurting? Why can't "we" get married and share in the same Rights afforded to heterosexual couples. After all we work in the communities and contribute just as anyone else does. Why shouldn't we be able to take advantage of the same benefits as anyone else? We are Doctors, Teachers, Political Leaders and come from all walks of life and yes, we are sterotypicaly viewed as designers, florists and fashion gurus... but those are just talents they are not who we are!. Our choice of a same gendered partner should not define us. The rights to be "married" to our partner and create a home atmosphere should allow us to take advantage of the same rights as a straight couple. Why shouldn't we be able to take the same benefits as any hetero couple who decides to create a union? It is only fair that we be treated equally and people should stop thinking about the "sex" and start looking at it from the point that we arew no different - in fact we are not only brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, in fact some of us were even married to an opposite sex partner (as I was) and have children. I know in my own family that I have the support of my ex wife and my children. I don't go into a straight couples house thinking, what do they do in the bedroom. Why should anyone look at a gay couple any different? People need to understand that we are just regular people who happen to find someone to love thats the same gender. They need to remove thier minds from the gutter and look at it as we are normal everyday people. I could go on about this as I am passionate about the marriage issues. I welcome the chance to talk with you further as to helping find a solution to making the dream of marriage equality come true.

MomPortectingChildren wrote:
"San Francisco has a highest cases of retardation of children. No human male was born to put his private parts in a cavity where fecal material comes out the legal term for gay is sodomy. We are taught to wash our handsafter going to bathroom. Logic tells me that AIDS is probably fecal material in the blood stream. San Francisco has a thousands of people dieing from AIDS. MR. Gore For someone who is for saving the world you dont have a clue about saving the children and doing whats best for the health of the children."

Little biology lesson miss, AIDS stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. When you say, "AIDS is probably fecal material in the blood stream." what you mean to say is, "HIV is probably fecal material in the bloodstream." HIV is the virus that attacks your immune system. AIDS does not occur until your immune system is so decimated that it can no longer fight off remedial infections. Now, if we want to talk about places where people put reproductive organs that are hotbeds for different kinds of bacteria and virus, then you might want to focus on the other end of the digestive system. The human mouth is the most bacteria ridden cavity. Yes, the human mouth has more bacteria than a human rectum. Granted the bacteria within a human mouth tends to be well adjusted to the environment, therefor causing little or no oral problem. This does not mean; however, that the bacteria within the human mouth is any more sanitary to be on any human reproductive organ.

Now, about this large population of children in San Fransisco who you seem to imply have HIV... how, I wonder, did they get HIV? Maybe they were born with it because their mothers were infected before or during the pregnancy.

Oh, about HIV. Though there is currently no cure, with medical technology where it is today, many people who are infected with the virus and suffer from the effects of AIDS can live very long and healthy lives.

MomProtectChildren wrote:
"If a mother changes her mind she is stripped of child and the CHILD LEADS A LIFE WITHOUT MOTHER FOREVER."

Sooo... how many of these "mothers" have actually done what you described?

MomProtectChildren wrote:
"Gay MEN, THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO THE CHILDREN THEY CREATED WITH LESBIAN WOMEN."

So? Are they keeping the children or are they just donating genetic material with the understanding that they will have little to no influence upon how the child is actually raised?

I would like to address the rest of your post, but to be quite blunt, its gibberish. And I don't mean that you have no idea what you are talking about, I mean that your grammar and spelling are atrocious and it is straining to read what you have wrote. If you choose to respond again then I would request that you take your time and make sure you are communicating clearly and concisely.

MomProtectsChildren wrote:
"The United States Surgeon General since 1977 and now more recently 23 medical associations for children receive human milk from first his natural lactating mother or second receive human milk from his healthly adoptive mother. The surgeon General warns against using baby formula, according to world health news, it causes many ailments to children such as diabetes, alergies, etc.. and death. According to World Health News 1.5 million babies die each year from the use of baby formula."

I'm not sure that milk from an adoptive mother, lest she already has a baby and is therefor lactating naturally, is an incredibly healthy thing... How does the adoptive mother achieve her lactating state, does she need to take hormones?

Now, as far as what formula causes, allergies, diabetes, etc and even death, well lets look at a few things. First, I take just about everything I hear from the surgeon general with a grain of salt. After all the surgeon general didn't give official recognition that cigarettes caused cancer until 1964. How long has the office of surgeon general been around? That's a few years to figure out that people who smoke tend to die of cancer...

One theory for allergies is that the immune system is not stimulated enough. Basically that means that your kid actually does NOT get sick enough, your kids immune system gets board, and then it reacts to things that it shouldn't to fill up the time. A much more popular theory is that it is genetic. I can vouch for this because my mother, my uncle, my sister, and I all have allergies, mostly hay fever. Guess what... we were all breast fed as babies.

Diabetes is either gotten because of genetic disorder (type 1 diabetes) or because a person eats way too much food that is usually sugary and hardly exercises (type 2 diabetes) If your child is unfortunate enough to be born with type 1 diabetes then that's just bad genetic luck. If your child develops type 2 diabetes, then you need to stop feeding your kid McDonald's and take them out to do something active rather than sit them in front of the TV all day.

Stardate wrote:
"Then just wait for the time when most Americans will agree that gays should be allowed to marry. You will wait for a long long time, I bet."

Can you recall in United States history when the last time the United States public changed its opinion about a minority group because that minority group just decided to wait until people accepted them?

I don't think it African Americans just waited around to receive more equal rights. Neither did women when it came to such a simple matter as voting. The point here is that waiting does not spawn change. Actively engaging the majority on an intellectual level does.

Stardate wrote:
"Who are you to say what rights God has given?"

I call a debate penalty. Your credibility is deducted for repeating a question word for word as your response to that very same question rather than answer with a valid, non circling, reply.

Stardate wrote:
"No. What I say is that having a mother and a father is way superior to having two "fathers" or two "mothers".
And for that matter Gore has to know that if he looks at his own family."

And while having a mother and a father might be superior to having two parents of the same gender, having two parents of any gender is superior to wasting your childhood in an orphanage.

Also, we are talking in generalizations when we say one circumstance is superior to another. There are plenty of couples with one violent and/or abusive spouse that adopt successfully. However, that is neither here nor there as it is a different topic all together.

Stardate wrote:
"If I was one of those children I sure would have prefered not to be raised by two men or two women.
And just because someone could get in an even worse situation doesn't mean the situation he is in is not bad enough.
I don't know what those children think about living with two gays but can you honestly say that for most kids that's an ideal environment?"

So just to be clear, if you were an orphan, you'd rather waste the beginning of your life in an underfunded government facility that be adopted by two men or two women?

As far as most kids ideal environment, I'd imagine that it would more likely include two loving parents of whatever gender rather than growing up without anyone who loves you. But alas I have a solution to the dilemma of our differing opinions. Why don't you actually go to an orphanage, talk to the kids between 3 and 6, and actually ask them if they would rather stay in the orphanage or be adopted by two daddies/mommies.

Stardate wrote:
"To be blunt: because you are homosexual and the institution of marriage was established for heterosexuals. Whether you are willing to accept or not that has everything to do with reproduction and protection of the offsprings and not just with love -- or whatever emotional condition you want to use to justify your "right" to marry."

Ah marriage. Yeah, you are right, in western culture marriage was established for heterosexual couples. By the church. That makes marriage a religious activity, and in this country what do we have? If you said, "Separation of church and state." then you are correct. We are running laws about what couples can get government benefits and what couples can adopt based upon a religious habit that is probably over 1,000 years old.

MomProtectChildren wrote:
"Gay Marriage is the ultimate discrimination toward the mother and the human child, it produces the same and worst effects on children as the felony crime of polygamy and A MAN CANNOT NURSE A BABY"

Wow, its not often that you see someone on the other side of the fence claim discrimination for attempting to grant a minority a right. Do tell, what are the same and worst effect on children that homosexual marriages produce?

Yes a man can nurse a baby. I will assume you have heard of a bottle. But here is what I want to know, if a couple adopts a child 3 years or older, would it really be necessary to nurse the child?

"...my partner and I raised two children of heterosexual marriages that fell apart. Would you have preferred those children become wards of the state?"
TerrAllyson

"If I was one of those children I sure would have prefered not to be raised by two men or two women."
StarDate

Ahh, StarDate, the truth comes out.

For you it's not about what's best for children at all. It's about gays being so bad that no kid should have to live with us, even when they're family, even when the alternative is a group home with a dozen houseparents paid by the hour. Many of them are fantastic with kids, but they're not family. Kids know the difference.

StarDate, you think your opinion is the norm, but when the details are seriously considered it's clear that you just have a personal problem with gays. All that stuff about what's best for children is just cover for the fact that you despise gay people.

Most child welfare agencies, and I think most taxpayers, consider it best for children to be placed with family before being abandoned to the state. In our case the state wasn't involved, as we offered to take the girls and their parents agreed.

We didn't get child support from the wayward parents or the state. Economically and emotionally we were able to do it because we are a committed, stable couple.

Ours is just one experience, but it shows one way stable partnerships contribute to society. This is why the government supports marriage with certain rights and benefits, and why it will further benefit our country when gay couples are supported in the same ways.

I feel that your opinion is based on lack of personal experience and/or willful ignorance of the reality. It seems like you can't accept the fact that gay people exist and some are great parents. I would love for every kid to be cared for by their parents, but the reality for some kids is different.

Both girls were happy to get out of their situation at the time, and now as adults, both have told us they appreciate what we did for them. They really missed their parents and didn't always appreciate us, but the issue was not our gayness, it was homework, chores, curfew...

What do you really know about it, StarDate? You weren't there and you're certain you would not have wanted to be there, given the situation our girls found themselves in.

I don't think most people would agree with you that abandoning a child to the state is better for her than living with a relative who is willing and able to take responsibility. If you say that's only the case when the relative is gay, your issue is obviously not about what's best for the child.

Gay Marriage is the ultimate discrimination toward the mother and the human child, it produces the same and worst effects on children as the felony crime of polygamy and A MAN CANNOT NURSE A BABY. The United States Surgeon General since 1977 and now more recently 23 medical associations for children receive human milk from first his natural lactating mother or second receive human milk from his healthly adoptive mother. The surgeon General warns against using baby formula, according to world health news, it causes many ailments to children such as diabetes, alergies, etc.. and death. According to World Health News 1.5 million babies die each year from the use of baby formula.
San Francisco has a highest cases of retardation of children. No human male was born to put his private parts in a cavity where fecal material comes out the legal term for gay is sodomy. We are taught to wash our handsafter going to bathroom. Logic tells me that AIDS is probably fecal material in the blood stream. San Francisco has a thousands of people dieing from AIDS. MR. Gore For someone who is for saving the world you dont have a clue about saving the children and doing whats best for the health of the children. If you support same-sex marriage then you discriminate against the human child. Gay and Lesbians in San Francisco are MAKING DEALS with each other to produce children. If a mother changes her mind she is stripped of child and the CHILD LEADS A LIFE WITHOUT MOTHER FOREVER. Gay MEN, THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO THE CHILDREN THEY CREATED WITH LESBIAN WOMEN. It is all there on black and white paper in the court house. There are many other reasons why same-sex marriage is bad for the children, but I'm tired and have to get my rest so I can go to work fresh. LIVE IN REALITY WHY DOES A GAY MAN HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR MOTHER AND FATHER, but the children produced are deprived from their natural inheritance. Mr Gore you'll probably will never read this but if you do Stop acting like a stupid politician and do your research. How can particle of human being(DNA) be enough evidence to stripped the whole physical child from his natural inheritance and from his Mother or Father for all his life and forever??? There is only one law and thats the natural law.
I am speaking for the cries and death the children have suffered from decisions of the lawmakers that do not follow and uphold the natural laws.
?...among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them...? These are our physIcal boundaries of our constitution.
This includes children, children have rights the first right of a child should be to received sustenance from his lactating mother. Mr. Gore, Your choice for GAY rights then you choose against CHILDREN rights. (PERIOD)

@terrallyson

"StarDate, I have read your posts. It's clear that you feel (for whatever reason) superior to people who are gay. "

No. What I say is that having a mother and a father is way superior to having two "fathers" or two "mothers".
And for that matter Gore has to know that if he looks at his own family.

"You didn't address the fact that my partner and I raised two children of heterosexual marriages that fell apart. Would you have preferred those children become wards of the state?"

If I was one of those children I sure would have prefered not to be raised by two men or two women.
And just because someone could get in an even worse situation doesn't mean the situation he is in is not bad enough.
I don't know what those children think about living with two gays but can you honestly say that for most kids that's an ideal environment?

"Why does a convicted murderer have the right to get married when I cannot?"

To be blunt: because you are homosexual and the institution of marriage was established for heterosexuals. Whether you are willing to accept or not that has everything to do with reproduction and protection of the offsprings and not just with love -- or whatever emotional condition you want to use to justify your "right" to marry.

@lekoman

"That's a fairly simplistic analysis of the philosophy behind human rights, and democracy too. In the United States' flavor of democracy - we define rights for minorities too."

Once again you repeat what I said while trying to refute it. The majority defines rights for minorites. Which means that unless the majority agree that gays should marry they don't have the right to marry. You present it as if the right to marry was God given or nature given - whichever you prefer - and the majority who don't want to let gays marry somehow take this right away. You can't take away something that doesn't exist. And the right for gays to marry does not exist. Like it or not. Simply because the majority never created such a right.

"History has shown that we as a nation move in the direction of progress *for* minorities, not against. "

Then just wait for the time when most Americans will agree that gays should be allowed to marry. You will wait for a long long time, I bet.

"In that way, you might say that the minorities in this country have done a fair share of "defining rights"."

No, minorities never defined rights. They fought for certain rights they tried to convince the majority to agree with them.
But they got those rights only when the majority accepted their position. Which is not the case with gays and marriage today.

"Who are you to say what rights God has given?"

Who are you to say what rights God has given?

"What makes your religious perspective any more valid than mine, or anyone else's? "
"Constitutional scholars have, for nearly the entire history of our country, read that to mean that the government doesn't get to have a say in matters of religion."

I don't have any religious perspective. Wrong call.
Noone was talking about religion except you. I used the phrase God given as a metaphor to describe something that exists by default. Which is how
you guys describe gays' "right to marry" and then blame the majority for taking that right away from them.

Gnani, I have something to brighten up your day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Now, about your comment about homosexuality being a disease... what makes homosexuality a disease? Is it contagious? No. Do people just drop dead from it? No. Does it directly and adversely effect any population? No. It is a lifestyle brought on either by a choice or by biology.

By your loose use of the word disease, I could assume that you think all people who wear glasses are diseased. Or if we are talking about a more basic behavioral symptom, maybe all people who play Dungeons and Dragons are diseased?

I am also curious how you would suggest that homosexuals would be able to breed future generations of homosexuals. That little joke aside, I do assume that you are talking about a homosexual couple raising a child to be another homosexual person. Since we are talking about homosexuality being natural vs unnatural and homosexual couples raising children to ? sexual orientation, I'll pose some sarcastic humor.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural, and Americans hate things that are unnatural. Which is why Americans do not use things like air conditioning, telephones, automobiles, televisions, etc.

2. Obviously homosexual couples will only raise homosexual children, because obviously heterosexual couples only raise heterosexual children.

@stardate

stardate says:
"... rights are defined by the majority. At least in a democracy."

That's a fairly simplistic analysis of the philosophy behind human rights, and democracy too. In the United States' flavor of democracy - we define rights for minorities too. It's a founding principle. History has shown that we as a nation move in the direction of progress *for* minorities, not against. This largely because of movements assembled and led by oppressed members of minorities. In that way, you might say that the minorities in this country have done a fair share of "defining rights".

stardate says:
"It's not that gays have the God given right to marry and the majority of people take that away from them."

Who are you to say what rights God has given? What makes your religious perspective any more valid than mine, or anyone else's? If a church will marry a gay couple (and there are many that will and are already doing so), what right does a state or the federal government have to invalidate that by refusing to recognize it legally? The first amendment would seem to suggest the government has no such right to cherry pick which religious tenants it agrees or disagrees with. So, this is where I'd reiterate what I said before - gay men and lesbians are already getting married. No one needed permission from the likes of you or your majority to do that. The only point that remains is that the government recognize that the same legal rights should apply to all unions... and constitutionally speaking that right already exists. It's right there in the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Constitutional scholars have, for nearly the entire history of our country, read that to mean that the government doesn't get to have a say in matters of religion. I'm with Varex... abolish the legal concept of "marriage" and call everyone's legally recognized coupling "civil union".

there is nothing big in homosexuality to endorse homosexuality. It is the law of nature in animal world including humans ,opposite sex attract and mate. Homosexuality,i do not know if it has happenned or happening in animals other than humans.,which i dont think happens.Even animals are sometimes faithful to their partners. if some one gets attracted to individuals of same sex,this is situational . AND NOT NORMAL. WHEN SOMETHING IS NORMAL IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN UNNECESARY IMPORTANCE. IT IS BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY TO IGNORE THESE ISSUES.It should not be allowed to breed in the future generations. homosexuality is as old as this earth. Insted of endorsing these kind of issues politicians should endorse love and loyalty in issues other than sex,like humanity. People should be taught the value of love for each other by controling their urges which will put them in these abnormal relations. Homosexuality is a disease. Treat it . Not endorsing to get vote from those individuals.

I'm proud to have Al Gore represent America, in one form or another.

StarDate, I have read your posts. It's clear that you feel (for whatever reason) superior to people who are gay.

You didn't address the fact that my partner and I raised two children of heterosexual marriages that fell apart. Would you have preferred those children become wards of the state? If we hadn't stepped in, they would have been.

You didn't address the fact that the laws as they currently exist penalize law-abiding citizens like my partner and me for no other reason than gender. Why does a convicted murderer have the right to get married when I cannot? I have committed no crimes except in the eyes of people like you, who consider gays to be sinners or otherwise undeserving of equality with yourselves. Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to God?

You didn't address the fact that it is fundamentally unfair for the government to penalize a couple based solely on gender. We are domestic partners in California. We still don't have the rights and benefits accorded to married people of the opposite sex, but when I had surgery a few years ago no one questioned my partner's right to stay by my side.

When you die, your spouse will get social security benefits to help her with the loss of your support. When I die, all that money I've paid in all these years goes where? Not to my partner under the current law, who would also be suffering the loss of her support. You think this is fair? I don't. It's not only unfair, it's destabilizing. The whole point of government benefits for married couples is the stabilizing effect on society. The government doesn't withhold that benefit if the couple had no children.

We can "marry" in a church anytime, thanks to enlightened people who keep their doors open for all souls. What we want is the same benefits given by the government to non-gay couples when they enter the civil contract, legally as well as religiously referred to as "marriage" (list posted by Varex_Sythe).

What we're talking about is equal rights under the law, no more and no less. Not everyone wants to make the commitment of marriage, but we and many others do.

There will always be people like you, who in another time would feel free to say all these mean things about Blacks or whoever it is you despise. So go ahead and gather in exclusive churches and angry right-wing blogspaces all you want. It's your right to associate with whomever you like. But this is my country and I pay taxes - more than I would if my partner and I could marry. That affects our business, our employees, our lives. This is America and I am not a criminal. I expect equal treatment under the law.

Remove adoption from the conversation for the time being.

Are you telling me that a couple married under a religiously accepted ceremony getting these rights is acceptable while a homosexual couple not getting these rights is not?

Since when is this a country that, instead of moving forward and making sure all decent citizens have the same rights, moves backwards and denies people the same basic rights because they have a different and publicly harmless lifestyle?

* Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

Stardate wrote:
"No it's not. It's a relationship which can create the best environment for new members of our species. It existed long before "rights" had any meaning."

You are correct, marriage is not a right, it is a religious practice. However, for a couple to be able to adopt, or benefit from tax deductions, and other such things that are associated with the religious practice of marriage are. Rights like adoption aren't just rights for the parents, but they are the rights of the children who are orphans as well. For some reason I doubt that many children who cannot find heterosexual foster parents would give a good goddamn if a caring and responsible homosexual couple wanted to adopt.

Stardate wrote:
"For that matter rights are defined by the majority. At least in a democracy. But the reason why gays are not allowed to marry in most US states is that the majority in those states find the idea absurd, to put it mindly. It's not that gays have the God given right to marry and the majority of people take that away from them. It's that such right never existed because the majority never created it."

I call bullshit. From my experience in voting on gay rights to "marry", the problem isn't the voters, the problem is what gets voted on. In Oregon during the early 2000's vote for homosexual marriages, voting yes and voting no to pass the measure equated to the same damn thing. Homosexuals could not be married within the state. I actually read the ballot explanation of what would happen if the measure passed, then I read what would happen if the measure failed. They were word for word the same goddamn thing. People were making such a big fuss about the measure being about homosexual rights, that people either didn't notice or didn't care that a vote either way reaped the same results.

The result of that measure was not a choice the public made. It was a predetermined outcome disguised as a public choice.

To further against your argument, I'll point out again that marriage is not a right for all, it is a religious ceremony. So why then do heterosexual couples receive such benefits from the government for being married? Separation of church and state prohibits this kind of crap. Lets take a look at those rights as presented by wikipedia.com.

Stardate wrote:
"But that's not what they want. They want to pretend that gay families are just as good as nuclear families and that's bull.
They don't want to marry simply because they want to love each other. They could do that without a marriage license. In fact they have been doing that for a while."

I'm confused. In what way would homosexual parent screw up children that heterosexual parents would not?

Stardate wrote:
"And to supply a woman and a man to protect their young children. You can't go around this argument: the best environment for young children
is one where they can get the attention both of their mother and their father. Not two fathers and two mothers."

Um, no. Humans tend to stay in monogamous relationships (aka they stay in pairs) in areas of the world that more or less don't have marriage practices. To boil it down, we have marriage because couples tended to stay together to raise children, not the other way around.

Stardate wrote:
"That's always the point where you get it wrong. It's not just about two persons. It's also about a possible third, fourth, fifth etc. person. You can't leave children out of it even if there are married couples who don't have children. Most do."

So what about those heathens who have children but never get married? Marriage is not about having children, if it were you wouldn't have couples who decide to get married but agree to not have kids.

I do agree that you cannot leave children out of the discussion of marriage because many people get married to either have kids, or because they are having a kid; however, saying children is the sole reason of marriage is like saying driving your friends around is the sole reason for getting a drivers license. People who are married aren't just going to get a divorce after the kids are grown up and self sufficient, just like a kid with a drivers license isn't going to give that license up once he/she is past the age in which driving your friends around for the hell of it is cool.

@terralyson

"Your mistake is thinking it's all about sex, which you consider entertainment for gays but serious biz for non-gays"

I don't consider it serious biz for anyone. And you didn't read my posts if you think I do.

"First, most people of either persuasion will tell you that sex is entertaining, no matter the particular genitalia involved."

And how is that news? That's what I said. Sex is entertainment for you. Big deal.

"Second, there are plenty of heterosexuals who don't have kids, and plenty of gays who do. "

I know. And how does this refute what I said about the best environment for children?

"Some day we'll get it back, because more and more people understand that marriage equality is not about sex, it's about equality."

You may get it back in SF. But you won't get it in most US states. For good reason.

@japangirl

"Sex is not all about procreation. "

And who said it is?
I said it's about procreation AND entertainment. For homosexuals it's only the later. For heterosexuals it can be both.
But marriage was not invented because people want to have sex with each other.
It was invented to protect the offsprings. Even if some married couples don't have offsprings. They are the exception not the rule.

"We have sex to express our desire and love for each other, to please one another, and to provide stability to our relationship."

I.e. to entertain each other. Fine, that's what I said.
If gays wanted to marry but leave children out of it I wouldn't have a problem with that.
But that's not what they want. They want to pretend that gay families are just as good as nuclear families and that's bull.
They don't want to marry simply because they want to love each other. They could do that without a marriage license. In fact they have been doing that for a while.

"Gays and lesbians have sex for the exact same reasons I do, and it serves to fulfill a universal human need for love and intimate contact with loved ones."

Yeah they want to have fun. But for that they don't need to be married. Marriage is more than two people entertaining each other.

"Marriage evolved as a way for men to control women and attempt to ensure that their genetic line would continue. "

And to supply a woman and a man to protect their young children. You can't go around this argument: the best environment for young children
is one where they can get the attention both of their mother and their father. Not two fathers and two mothers.

"Thankfully we have moved away from that, but marriage still has such terrible roots. It certainly didn't evolve as a way for people to protect one another, because polygamous and polyamorous tribal units work fine for that."

No they don't work fine at all. One man cannot care for 100 children as he can care for a few. That's pretty obvious. Most polygamous societies are primitive and brutal. Not something we would tolerate in a modern civilization.

"That said, now marriage is a statement of commitment and love to another person."

That's always the point where you get it wrong. It's not just about two persons. It's also about a possible third, fourth, fifth etc. person. You can't leave children out of it even if there are married couples who don't have children. Most do.

"No one should be denied that right, and marriage is in fact a right. "

No it's not. It's a relationship which can create the best environment for new members of our species. It existed long before "rights" had any meaning.

"You argue that a minority is attempting to place their views on the majority. It doesn't matter if this is true or not, because rights are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because someone is different, and there are more of you than of them, doesn't mean you can deny them equal protection of law "

For that matter rights are defined by the majority. At least in a democracy. But the reason why gays are not allowed to marry in most US states is that the majority in those states find the idea absurd, to put it mindly. It's not that gays have the God given right to marry and the majority of people take that away from them. It's that such right never existed because the majority never created it.

@Vierotchka

What makes you think that American men are that unique?
Where are the statistics showing that in the other 193 countries men prefer small breasts over big ones?
While travelling in Europe I certainly didn't see that.
Quite to the contrary.

Wow, well it is obvious to me that I did not do a sufficient job in portraying my point of view. I see where I made the error, so I apologize and will attempt to correct it.

Though I did advocate that I think we should have a separate term for a religious marriage and a homosexual union, I failed make mention that I believe "marriage" should be purely religious, and offer no legal or government benefits. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and we are supposed to be a country that separates church and state to the best extent that is possible.

To boil it down, I think that if a couple wants to get married and can find a church that will marry them then kudos to them. However, if they want to have the legal benefits that currently fall under the title of "marriage", then I think that they should have to file for a civil union regardless of whether the couple is a homosexual or heterosexual couple.

Mr. Gore, I think you have it right. I agree with you on this one.

I just read StarDate's posts and will counter his "facts" with real facts:

My partner and I raised the daughter of my brother and the daughter of her sister, because they and their heterosexual biology weren't up to the job.

Your mistake is thinking it's all about sex, which you consider entertainment for gays but serious biz for non-gays (otherwise known as breeders, according to your worldview.)

First, most people of either persuasion will tell you that sex is entertaining, no matter the particular genitalia involved.

Second, there are plenty of heterosexuals who don't have kids, and plenty of gays who do.

Third, when my Dad died and my partner helped me take care of my Mom and all the arrangements, it wasn't about entertaining ? it was what a good spouse does.

My Dad's very Baptist siblings (who didn't know about me before) saw the light about gay couples, telling us they'd really learned something and wouldn't continue to support the marriage ban that was at that time getting a lot of airplay.

My partner and I were married in San Francisco in 2004, but they took our license away. Some day we'll get it back, because more and more people understand that marriage equality is not about sex, it's about equality.

StarDust, you can marry a Mormon or a stripper or a Mexican, and even if I were prejudiced against those groups, I wouldn't say a word in protest about your decision ? because it is *your* decision. It's absolutely none of my business who you chose to marry.

I'm also a kind person, which is why I'm not racist, sexist, or engaged in trying to punish people for marrying without my approval.

The current laws cost us money. My partner and I are businesspeople, employers, parents, community volunteers. Prisoners can get married, but we are barred.

Gays are penalized economically and socially because some people don't consider us equal to themselves or worse, deserving punishment for the sin of wanting to build a life with someone who has similar genitalia.

You're like those morality police in Afganistan who go around making women cover their ankles so men aren't tempted to rape them. Why do you care what's in my pants? Why do you think it makes America stronger to have laws that weaken certain members?

Your opinion and the laws as they currently exist cannot withstand the application of logic. Unfortunately, prejudice isn't something that's reasoned into someone in the first place, so it can be tough to reason it out.

Al Gore ? right again.

Love that man.

You go Gore! Mr. President. You should be in the White House. Bush stole the election. He sent his republic minions who disguised as protesters to stop the re-count. GO GORE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Mr. Gore,

You've said it so perfectly and so succinctly that, as a gay, I can only respond, "Thank you!"

(signed)
-- yet another person who's wished all along that Al Gore were president.

Mr. Gore, thank you for speaking bluntly. Those of us in the gay community have realized for years that lack of recognition of our relationships only foments promiscuity.

I'm in my second long-term relationship (91/2 years for the first that ended due to AIDS, 12+ in this one). There are many of us that marry for life.

Beyond just the sheer humanity of recognizing our unions, we've earned the right, I feel. Over the centuries how many gay men and women have contributed to society with science, art, literature? We're not just "hangers on," who are spoiling marriage for straight people so we can tear down civilization. On the contrary, we've contributed to civilization and want it to continue getting better.

Thanks again, Sir!

Mr. Gore,
Thank you, and congratulations.
Respect, how rare these past many years.

Please give us another chance.
If you won't run, can we draft you at the convention?

We need a man of your caliber to see us out of the darkness. An honest man.
Please don't leave us to the others.
We need you, will you please reconsider.
G-d bless you and your family.
Take care of yourself and PLEASE watch your back.
David

The "same rights" must mean civil union contracts made by the state. Marriage is a sacrement administered by religions. We can not make religions marry people. What we can do, tomorrow, is to make sure every single person has the same and equal rights under the law. This means gays should be able to go down to the Justice of the Peace, just like any other couple, and create a civil union. If they want to call it "marriage" they should go right ahead, as far as I am concerned.

It just muddies the waters to demand churches marry any couple the church denies can be married. Niether should the churches have any say-so over who gets to make leagal contracts with each other. Why can't everyone see the sense of such an approach?

Gays want to be "married"? Well, the state can not mandate what churches will or won't do. Niether can churches mandate the civil liberties of citizens.

So well said, as always. I have been a supporter/fan/voter of yours for years, and yet again you said exactly what I believe. If only more people felt this way.

Said it before, say it again. Marriage is about commitment in the eyes of God. That's all.

markkraft, Obama is opposed to gay marriage. Please do not confuse him with a real advocate for equality.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A THREAT EITHER. CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT BOLDLY AND OFTEN. WITH ALL THE TALK ABOUT CHANGE THE CANDIDATES ARE CHANTING, NONE IS WILLING TO RISK ACTUALLY TAKING A STAND ON THESE ISSUES. VICE PRESIDENT GORE, IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO INTERJECT A LITTLE SOMETHING INTO THIS RACE. THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED MAKING GLOBAL WARMING AN ISSUE OF CONCERN. YOU WERE MENTIONED ON MSNBC THE OTHER NIGHT AS A PERSON WHO COULD STEP IN AND GET THE DEMOCRATS BACK ON TRACK, I AGREE!

The nuances of useing the word marriage rather than civil unions is in fact one of the most important aspects of this message. We have learned long ago through issues of race and gender that there is no such thing as seperate, but equal. In order to give full civil rights the institutions must be the same. Calling gay marriage civil unions has always been a means of decreasing the rights of gay and lesbian couples and removing them from the greatly respected and honored institution of marriage. Allowing homosexual couples the use of the existing institution is the only way to equalize and destigmatize the union of gay couples.

Bravo, Sir. Thanks for speaking out with a reasoned argument.

@stardate

"Only a small fraction of the society does. A small minority claims that the vast majority own [sic] them something."

Actually... a fairly large minority - one with a documented substantial and routine positive economic and social impact on our country and on the world - claims that the majority owes them something.

"And it's not that gays don't have sex without the rest of us allowing them to marry."

True. Though they as people would benefit from the strength that the legal institution provides, and when they benefit, society benefits. Thus, society should encourage gay marriage.

To address a rhetorical point - gay men and lesbians aren't seeking 'permission' to marry from "the rest of" anyone. The majority and the government do not now, nor have they or will they ever, granted rights. They simply decide whether or not to recognize rights which must, by their nature, already exist.

Finally, the argument over whether or not the right for GLBT persons to marry the partners of their choosing exists can only be decided based on whether or not a homosexual relationship is as valid as a heterosexual relationship. If it is, it must, in any just society, be treated as such and be granted the same rights and protections under whatever legal and social framework is present in that society. In our case, this is civil marriage.

With these as givens, we look to whether or not stable homosexual relationships share all of the same benefits to their participants and benefactors as stable heterosexual relationships, and we discover that - because there is very little difference in the overall physiological & psychological makeup and the social relevance of gay men and women vs. straight men and women (and what difference there is, while not to be understated, is rather superficial - perhaps the most extreme being a generally higher tendency towards mental illness secondary to social marginalization, and a slightly elevated level of sexual promiscuity likely due to the lack of appropriate social constructs for maintaining monogamy [i.e. marriage]) - they do!

Before trotting out the "ability to reproduce and raise offspring" argument, please recall that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to reproduce, and that many homosexual couples adopt and raise children. Furthermore, note that almost every academic study on the issue has shown that kids raised in households with two parents of the same gender come out as well adjusted as their peers from heterosexual two parent households. This notion can only be strengthened if these homosexual parents are allowed the rights and privileges associated with civil marriage. There are so many reasons that gay marriage is positive for society as a whole, and so very few valid reasons that it is negative. I fail to understand why we as a society should ignore that.

Good for you, Al. I am proud of the stands you are taking on behalf of human rights and the environment.

I wish you had won in 2000 (here in Florida, many say you DID win in 2000...). But you may be more influential politically where you are today than if you were constrained by the usual 'crats.

Stardate,

Sex is not all about procreation. I'm a heterosexual female in a non-marital, sexually active relationship, and I can assure you the last thing either of us wants is babies. We have sex to express our desire and love for each other, to please one another, and to provide stability to our relationship. Gays and lesbians have sex for the exact same reasons I do, and it serves to fulfill a universal human need for love and intimate contact with loved ones. That goes waaaay beyond 'entertainment value'.

Marriage evolved as a way for men to control women and attempt to ensure that their genetic line would continue. Women can be pretty sure any baby they have is theirs, but once lines of descent were traced from the father then men had to be sure any kids were theirs. They started controlling women's sexuality and then their daily lives because they had to be sure the woman didn't meet or sleep with any men other than themselves. Eventually, a man's 'honor' became tied up in how "his" woman behaved herself, so he became even more invested in controlling her life and sexuality. Thankfully we have moved away from that, but marriage still has such terrible roots. It certainly didn't evolve as a way for people to protect one another, because polygamous and polyamorous tribal units work fine for that.

That said, now marriage is a statement of commitment and love to another person. No one should be denied that right, and marriage is in fact a right. You argue that a minority is attempting to place their views on the majority. It doesn't matter if this is true or not, because rights are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because someone is different, and there are more of you than of them, doesn't mean you can deny them equal protection of law (14th Amendment to the US Constitution).

Absolutely right on! ..."shouldn't be discouraged by any discrimination to the law". Period.

I have a dream that Al Gore is in the White House and then I wake up to the present nightmare!

Thank you Mr. Vice President!

As someone else pointed out in an earlier post, we can only imagine what a different world it would be today had you been inaugurated after your 2000 victory -- it would surly be a much better world.

Thank you for all you continue to do in your tireless efforts to make a genuine difference in the world today. Your support for human and civil rights tied to your efforts around global warming are making a huge difference.

You're the best!
http://jfmillerfoundation.org/