V Guyver

she was pretty annoying, almost like Mizuki minus the constant shouting of Sho's name and crying over little details... no we have the princess doing the constant crying.

I will agree with you, the love triangle would be interesting. If she were to die, those tow would be after one another as much as Amuro and Char did. If she lives, they can probably go through an entire season of her being in conflicted emotion over the triangle. It shows some promise, and in turn this may actually redeem her character.

yes, even the body design is similar.

yeah, that was the best thing about that scene. A shame the fight wasn't better.

my god...

http://video.yahoo.com/network/100024552?v...74&l=100051

Well, maybe he's a step towards having one, since many of the first new types on the original series were man made. The entire SEED plot revolved around man made New types, and even Gundam X had a few.

But so far, the super soldiers of the series have proven to be the closest to the new types, they do have telepathy and incredibly reaction speed in combat, so they are actualy the closer to new types then Tieria. A shame he blew up the building filled with them, otherwise we would of had a ton more characters with similar abilities to deal with.

Yes, I was thinking that as well. Next episode we'll see a lot more of Soma and Allelujah.

yes, specifically after he got his arm bitten off in the OVA series. I may redo this to make it clearer, I sort of did it in the spur of the moment.

well not face to face. But as usually they are on opposing sides holding a trigger at one another. He's not too different from SEED's protagonist, albeit less disillusioned.

yeah, that's why I named that file g1 OVA, the blue green 12OVA (12 episode) and the dark blueg1 anime. I actually could of color schemed them to be G2 and G4, but show wouldn't pass for either one. Oh and during the competition discussion thread, I ended up getting an idea for an injured guyver in the snow.

warning some mild language here as Obama promises to preserve our @#%^ Jobs.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3567872/9865409

I wonder if cannibals around too Kenji. I'd like to see if he'd be intrested in using any of the edits I did for his own projects.

yeah, but in Gundam X it was 99% of the human population on earth killed off.

Anyways, the new episode was pretty dramatic. And next episode should be a very cool showdown.

ahh thanks kenji! Glad to see you posting more often too.

However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

No argueing there. However, those have been dealt with by law, and the current federal laws are still in question about gay marriage. So it's not a point so much as distinction that gay marriage hasn't been placed in yet or ever.

Essentially nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman and conversely that a woman is not a man. There is then undeniable that a heterosexual couple brings two essentially complimenting but different sexes together that same sex couplings do not. Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally.

For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly regulate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.

No qualifications are not to be confused with one's practices of sexual intercourse or skin color. So this is true.

It is no fault of heterosexual couples that same sex couples aren't capable of natural procreation. So there is no bases for describing a bias where there is none. Since bias requires a choice and we have no choice over our biology after birth.

Where the bias comes from is of little indifference if it actualy accurs. But if you insists, the bias doesn't come from the faultless biological urge homosexuals have. But there is a ton of Bias that does come from:

-Religious beliefs

-Cultural values

-superstitions

-long existing prejudices passed on from one generation to another

-and people who simply hate other people for being different (and as absurd as that is, it's common)

This reasoning is flawed since there is not really a balance of authority. A same sex couple can only present one sex to the child, they do not represent both.

You'd get the same result from only one parent, but it's two parents, with two incomes, and two different sources of ideals, and other variances. If anything it's still better then a single parent and close enough to a stable to parent household. You shouldn't dismiss it just because there are two same sexes raising a child. Otherwise single parents who have uncles and aunts for their children would be meaningless if some followed your view.

Same sex couples could benefit from the same safe guards that presently protect heterosexual couples. However, the difference you are ignoring though is that a heterosexual couple could produce more children and thus additional safe guards are need to protect the potential children. Such safeguards aren't necessary for a same sex couple, since a child can only enter their relationship by choice and planning. The majority of protection of children afforded to married couples are thus not needed for same sex couples. Extending the institution of Marriage to same sex couples would not change this.

I'm not sure what you are getting at... are you saying that they gay couples would be less effective because they can't give birth to a second child? They could simply adopt another one. Also if there is no difference between the security of a normal married couplewith a single child to that of a married same sex couple with a single child, then there really is no issue here.

The issue of gay adopting children is thus separate than the issue of marriage. Though it is true the larger the family the more resources can be shared but if that is your argument then we might as well justify polygamy for the more the better argument. But this also bring us back to the issue of what society deems best for children and how they should be ideally raised.

Unfortunately, most of this debate is about possibilities and which we consider valid. Most on either side will argue many of the points already brought to light but without context as I have shown. Ultimately we only have one country we can really compare to and that is Scandinavia, having had gay marriage legalized the longest the impact on their society is the most evident and that impact shows a massive decline in the institution of marriage.

In Scandinavia the actual percentage of gay marriages dropped significantly after getting the right, was this because it was more of an ideal than something they really wanted? Or was their goal not to be treated equally but to destroy the institution upon which traditional values were embedded into society and thus recreate society into a form in which traditional morality no longer had a place?

In either case it is hard to argue with the results as marriage has become essentially meaningless in Scandinavia. Whether this will be true for America is not certain but it should be a concern.

You sound like you are suggesting it's a conspiracy against marriage. I seriously doubt gay wanted the right to marry just so they can weaken the institution of marriage. Gay's are a minority in every country. If they gain the right, and suddenly the rate of marriage goes down, you can't blame them it on them solely, also if they are also declining in marriage numbers, doesn't that mean it's a common national problem that is extending to gays as well as the more common folk? One may as well argue that gays are responsible for the birthrate drop in many countries in recent years if that were the case.

As I have stipulated from the beginning this is not a simple issue. I do not claim to have all the answers and there are issues which I have not covered. My fears of the negatives may indeed be less of a concern than I may think but I think they should be considered before we make changes that can't be unmade.

I have tried to outline the concerns of both sides and show how they compare. With which concerns are valid and which are imagined. Since the majority of opinions voiced have been only to one side of the debate I have shown more of the opposing view. Consequently this has confused some into thinking my only concern is the opposing view when in reality I only seek a compromise based on the concerns of both sides. Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on.

I think I have proven this isn't just a simple issue of giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, for in fact they already have those rights, but rather what people think the institution of marriage is for versus what they want it to be. The future of American society is at stake and the choices we make will effect all the generations to come.

It certianly isn't a simple issue, we all are having problems trying to understand the social problems, but I can't follow your logic on too many points. You said "Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on." This is true, in that they can't reprisent all the same reasons that a normal couple should, but they shouldn't it's a different type of couple. One not typicaly concerned with child birth. If anything they are just as capable and justified to get married as a normal couple, and would would simply reprisent a point of marriage. It doesn't have to be about biological functions or child birth, it could simply be a model of adults in union from love. I can see no horrible consequence in that.

I think I lost some of my text in the replies because of errors with the board.

I can definitely understand your points and concerns with marriage. Just like You I don't have all the answers, but I still have to point out the flaws in your argument as much as you have done with mine arguement. Oh and worry not Durendal. I suppose a few of us may get a little heated over the matter, but I doubt we'll be at each others throats anytime soon. In the end, i'm sure we'll all remain friends.

Hmm, that link doesn't work for me V Guyver. Here's the wiki on Marriage penalty

The general thinking behind the tax penalty was to to make it easier for couples with unequal income and especially for couples with one member staying at home with the kids. Mind you this was put in place in '69 before women became a major force in the work force and incomes were still predominantly male orientated. So essentially those more likely to have one parent spend more time withe the family got the benefit while those most likely to spend the least time with the kids got the penalty. Still it is not a system reflective of modern reality, with valid problems that need to be addressed, and so major changes are in store as many of the statutes have to be reviewed around 2010.

The systems still in place though, and oddly enough people tend to still pay these higher taxes. With the rising single Parent and pre-teen parent's rates, the system is still useful. Just odd that the government in the end taxes many of us more, ironic since that wasn't the purpose of behind that bill.

Anyway, to address your previous post VGuyver... I appreciate your honest assessment but not everything you are asserting is entirely true. My efforts are to show that this is not an issue of discrimination and the question of gay marriage effects everyone and not just gays. (If it helps, you can skip to the summary at the end if you're not interested in a full analysis)

No need buddy, you broke it up enough that I could digest it easily. Read the whole thing, so thanks for the effort as i can tell you tried to condense your points a bit.

It is true polling data is subjective but trends shown by how people vote are not and in this respect it is true since the majority have voted in favor of not redefining marriage.

Several thousand protesters have indeed been seen advocating gay marriage, but under the same note over a million people signed and put Pro 8 on the ballot and it was passed by the same voters who elected Obama president.

Under the same observation it is also true the majority of Americans support adopting of civil unions or some other alternative. Some polls just confuse this distinction. Americans are reasonable people in general and just because people may be oppose to redefining marriage does not mean they are against gay rights. Saying so is just a way to polarize the issue and dismiss the valid concerns many Americans have over this issue.

As it presently stands, the US federal government does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act and only 3 states actually have made it legal (though that may drop to 2 if California accepts Prop 8 ) out of all 50.

Overall, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of about 11 states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. At least 41 states have statutes and/or constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage, with many of these statutes voted in with the people's support.

While advocates are trying to circumnavigate this trend and make same-sex marriage issue a civil rights issue. Something that since slippery slope arguments are indeed valid in a court of law has let them gain ground through this tactic but this is not a representation of the will of the people but legal action to force this change.

The difference is thus the rights of Americans to continue to define marriage as a system of procreation from the right to redefine it as simply a sexual relation and divorce it from the act and responsibility of procreation.

That's the thing, aren't we arguing about how we define gay marriage? Though that has been one of the common associated views in marriage in the last 100 years, it's in the crossroads of society in choosing weather or not to change it, preserve it as it is. It's almost as much of a debate itself as those who want to ban or approve gay marriage in the first place.

Remember marriage has not always been about love, most of the reasons for marriage were financial in origin. Or political like marriage between royal families to form alliances or to gain benefits like citizenship. Reasons and practices of course varied throughout history. It's just in the modern world the old traditions have been glazed over by the concept of love dominating all other reasons, though the old truths are still also valid since love is still not the only reason to get married, and it is just a question of whether marriage should still be linked to procreation or should procreation become an after thought.

The problem with this is the assumption that we can give them what they don't already have. They do not have the ability to procreate naturally with their chosen companion. Giving them the right to call their unions marriage will not give them this ability. All it will do is redefine marriage to no longer associate it with traditional family unit for the purpose of procreation.

Thus you will be taking away the foundation upon which the right of protection for procreation is given to heterosexuals. You have to see both sides to this argument before you can make claims of rights abuse.

The Nuclear family concept is fairly new, it wasn't until just this past century that we started to advocate it. Before hand it was marriage to one lady, then with some mistress's here and there and divorce was a new ability to. Before that multiple wives and divorce being being unneeded. I don't see a change in our current tradition and view of family units all that bad or unwanted. Besides, in the here and now, Gay's have been the target of biased abuse, prejudice, and segregation. You can't possibly argue that protecting one's current traditions doesn't constitute as being biased or abusive to someone different or gay. May I remind you that Native Americans, blacks, and Jews were all targeted with lynches at one point or another in the last 2 centuries to protect the then traditions of "expansion" "black submission", and "barbarian cultures".

To compare...

Are men second class citizens for not being able to join an all women's club?

actually man clubs have been targeted for being biased against other social groups. Same goes for both a women's club and men's club. Many times both have been sued against and even been made the subject of movies for social movements. You just don't see them often enough enough these days to warrant notice because of the progress in equal rights, as well as the fact that women's clubs and men's clubs tend to have major differences that each other's parties have no interests in. Even gay's have their own social clubs as well. I understand the point you were trying to make, but it doesn't apply IMO.

Are Christians second class citizens if they aren't allowed to join a Mosque?

What business does a christian have in joining a Mosque if he doesn't convert or vice-versa. There's a reason why they are treated as second class citizens in some countries. Look at Afghanistan, they sentenced a man to execution for converting to Christianity 11 years ago... If not a second rate citizen... then a dead one. I also don't see the point in this comparison.

Are Muslims second class citizens if they aren't allowed in join a Church?

Same as above. If you don't convert you have no reason to join a church.

Are babies second class citizens for not being able to do adult only activities when they aren't even physically at the stage they could?

This is confusing, this offers no logical point at all. Babies are too young to make choices in the same level as an adult, and babies also lack the same physical traits that would allow them to be on the same. Level, and if you are to talk about disabled people, some of them do consider themselves second class or specialized citizens depending on the point of you. Trying to compare people who are incapable of doing things that the average human being doesn't constitute as being biased against or second class citizens. If anything, they are just in situation preventing them from certain functions. I'm not sure why you'd try to use babies as a point in this manner.

Are men second class citizens for not being able to get pregnant and give birth?

If none of these examples are examples of bias then neither can you claim bias on Marriage.

Second class citizens for a limited biological function? No, but the same can be argued about women, men used to say that women were biologically inferior and this is why they actually were second class citizens. In fact women still are in many regions of the world, simply because they tend to be smaller, weaker, and function differently. I also fail to see the logic in this, sorry.

sorry about splitting the posti n half, but I reached the quote limit. lol

This is a confusion, Marriage as it stands is not solely about love. People get married for all sorts of reasons and traditionally love was not highest among those reasons. Like the shotgun wedding example marriage has been predominantly been about responsibility. Responsibility because it invariably involves procreation and thus responsibility for the children produced by such unions.

Contrary, people do not need to be married to feel love or otherwise care for each other. So you are confusing romanticism with marriage, its a plus if love is involved in marriage but it is not a requirement. The whole "For Better or Worse" and "Until Death do you Part" are the key parts.

Emotions are personal, no one can give or take your right to feel emotions. Thus it is not logical to use that as part of this debate.

Then I suppose my logic is flawed, I don't think it is though. The concept of Romance has only been around for only some hundreds of years, and marriage thousands. But marriage wasn't about responsibility either. If anything it was about practicability to survive and gain human needs like emotional support. I suppose you are right in people not needing to be in love to be married, but I can argue you don't need it to be same sex either. You are going about this in ancient and dark ages periods in which marriages were used as bartering tools in trade and politics. If some so desired, they could of traded off their sons to be married, even to a gay man if it would help reach a goal (and trust me they did according to certain ancient peoples.) But times have changed since then, haven't you noticed that love is now one of the primary reasons for marriages today? You can't ignore love, it's part of human social functions and it helps in finding a desirable long life partner weather it be man or woman. Emotions are not just personal, they also serve a function into social interaction in allowing us to judge the others feelings, without it there would be many misunderstandings. it makes totaly sense to me in my logic, but we don't seem to use the same form of logic, so I doubt you'll accept it.

This is a opinion that has little to do with reality and takes no account of the context of the societies being referred as examples for justification. I have already pointed out that ancient cultures do not represent modern cultures.

But to play devil's advocate, since some seem to want to justify this debate from a historical perspective and because it keeps popping up. It may help to actually bother to check your examples. For example Ancient Roman Law on marriage was not an open acceptance of same sex couples but rather a tolerance that belies the social stigma that such practices had in their culture.

If that is the case, then the points of your older traditional cultures don't hold merit to current changing culture. But my point wasn't that they represent our current culture, no it was to point out that there have been changes over time that removed gay marriage, and it may very well be reversed into allowing gay marriage in this turn of the century.

The reasons for which should be noted had a lot to do with Czars like Nero.

Alas poor Nero, ever a sufferer of biased historians over the centuries. It wasn't until recently that he's began to be viewed in a favorable light. He's been vilified by Christians for rumors of him burning Rome down and killing Christians and thus being associated with the devil. To top it off, even roman historians wrote about him negatively about him, and some even admitted to being biased against him. You should second guess all that is said about him. Tiberius was a far more vile being, who made Caligula the mad emperor he became. Nero on the other hand was treated like a pawn by his family and thrust into politics and tried to survive this while reforming Rome... He actually tried to end poverty in the Roman empire. Sorry for the detraction.

The so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. A great many of the primitive societies deemed to be tolerant of same-sex marriage ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate. Some for example included human sacrifice as part of the ceremony. Frankly, comparing any modern society to these primitive examples defies common sense. Just because something may or may not have happened in the past does not denounce or justify it to a society not based on the same principles.

What's wrong in comparing older societies to ourselves? It took us more then a thousand of years to relearn how to make concrete like the Romans. The Aztecs had much more advanced astrological then we did fairly recently, not to mention incredibly accurate calendars that makes our current calendar look like a joke. Some societies and cultures have been devoid of war and famine unlike us (sadly we wiped some of them out). Heck, the ancient Chinese built a device that could detect earthquakes long before modern technologies. I think we should keep an open mind. Oh and I can name a number of primitive and even advanced societies that practiced all of the above, look up Baal, now there was a god who was worshiped by the most advanced iron makers in the world, but required having children burned alive inside a statue...

Furthermore, what most take for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that have been mistakenly eroticized. Like in some parts of India they still practice some old traditions including a mock gay marriage in which men marry other men dressed in drag. But it is only a ceremony and the men go back to their wives afterward. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.

We have police officers and firemen who parade themselves in drag as a joke as a yearly joke. Online MMORPG marriages, so it's not that different and not really related to actually homosexuality. But you said it was mistaken, but I have to point out yet again that Nero was biased against, so I wouldn't take the slanders written about him with full conviction.

Roman law ultimately dramatically changed when Christianity became a force in the Roman Empire and then people caught with such relations could be burned at the stake. Not exactly an acceptance of gay unions I would say. The Greeks before them simply had an acceptance of all forms of sexual intercourse. So people using Roman law as an example are really picking and choosing which era they are looking at. Never mind the invalidity of comparing such an old and long gone culture to any modern society literally makes no sense. Also many of those practices were based on pagan religions and thus we would have to ignore our present separation of church and state to even consider them for examples.

Back to the present... Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry.

Neither was it written that minorities nor women should be excluded, but it still happened at one point. You are right though in saying that it won't deny them the rights... but it can lead to that situation if they close off other venues too. Like I mentioned before, I would prefer marriage being defined as only a man and woman union, but I can tolerate it not being defined like that too.

another version of the previous work. Dunno why I bothered doing it. I guess the lighter texture attracted me.

and me toying around with another toy image.

original source material

and subsequent versions... all of which you can change the color schemes to your favorite guyver color scheme. Also, it's an easy enough image for banners and wall papers, so feel free to use it to create some.

and just for fun...

another one, this one took me even longer because I ad no idea what I was doing. I got lucky with the final products.

original

black and white, didn't become as lined as I'd hoped, so I had to improvise from now on

coloring for expirimentation

merger of coloring with original for look, then smoothed

textured with for darkness and leaving face half black then added transparant glow

then figured Id's try to add air pressure from his facial pores (note they go up, not down like other guyvers.)

Oh and on a final note. I don't know what the contest that Durendal and Ryuki are eventualy going to sponser and hold. But if anyone likes, I can try and help them with their entries. Also, if you'd like to use some of my edits, or just parts of them then jsut ask. I've seen Cannibal and others here on the board do better work, but I hope some of these can be of some use.

the last 2 only took like 4-5 minutes of work. These new ones took a bit longer because I had to airbrush things by hand digitally like an hour. I really had no idea what I was doing, but eventually I just decided to try and make the guyot action figure look like it was actually drawn. I really don't know how well it came out, especially the last one with the clashing red and blue with stone backdrop. (did it just out of curiosity of how'd it look.) Anyways...

Original

black and white and after contrasts and size blow up.

colored with airbrush tool

the same but with plastic effect for shading and a slight texture

and just an experiment with the coloring. I should of done the background separately instead of just airbrush it in to the pic which messed up a 2 blades a little. But I really don't care since I don't like it much. Also used the stone filter to give it that bumpy look again.

Edit: Oops just noticed that I miscolored his right tooth (to out left)

Edit2: Fixed and updated the images.

thanks guys. I think I may expriment more from now on. Just because I can't draw as much as I'd like these days, doesn't mean I can't photoshop these days.

well another one, again used the stone in the background and edited from an action figure pose someone posted online. I saw potential in the image so it led to this. I decided to use two different colors in order to add a dynamic contrast to the image. Now that I think about it, Cannibal did some NBA guyver mock ups that used the same color contrast as I just did.

anyways, the original image I found (Blew up the image because it was pretty small, almost a thumbnail.)

and my re imagining of it...

cereal, toast, waffles. The usualy stuff. Though I have at times eaten left over pizza, and oves moles.

yeah, older marriages were like a handshake. Later it became a religious mark, and now a contract.

As for the paying of higher taxes, I don't know why they do that, but once you married you tend to pay an extra thanks to the "marriage penalty" actually some married couples don't have a difference, and other even get tax breaks, but only if their income is not around the same range of income. If you are around the same range of income (which is pretty common) then you will get taxed more. Pretty silly...

http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html

Here is an example.

__________________________________________Married Couple_____Individual

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGI (Adjusted Gross Income)__________________$100,000//////////////$50,000

Minus exemptions and standard deductions______-$12,500//////////////-$6,950

Taxable income_____________________________$87,500///////////////$43,050

Federal tax_________________________________$19,002///////////////$8,766

($17,532 for two individuals)------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage penalty_____________________________$1,470///////////////$00

Sources Used: IRS Tax Code, USA Today

Zeo seems to of gone through a lot of effort to try and prove that the majority of the public and thus the government are against gay marriage. He's gone through lots of websites and written a ton of stuff that is almost hard for my tired feeble brain to digest. I'm not sure if he's just trying to support the governments actions and function through logic, or is simply against gay marriage as a "Marriage" instead of under another term.

Ryuki's been trying to point out that very bluntly that the terms of marriage and even current family values aren't concrete as they often do indeed change over time. I tend to agree with him on that, though I can also certainly understand Zeo's attempt to preserve marriage as he knows it since I too find gay relationships a bit foreign to me.

In my case, I really just see the current passing of a the law as a futile attempt at attempting to stop social changes. not that movements for social changes always happen in the here and now, but eventually they do as history has shown repeatably. Outlawing it just means it will go through the courts again (I believe there have already been 6 different challenges issued thus far that are yet to hit the courts) and it may be repealed, and public sentiment is indeed divided as show cased today. Already thousands have protested in the streets of California today alone on 11/9/08 (Making note of the date so not as to forget it in train of thought). Considering how small a minority Gay's are, it's a pretty impressive number, especially since many people who are protesting are not gay. Here is the article. Zeo stated that the country isn't divided over the issue, if that were the case then it wouldn't be an issue, none the less one that would be constantly on the news over states and federal bills attempting to either ban or legalize gay marriage.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/2...agemarches.html

Zeo was correct though in pointing out that people don't have a right to get "married", it's instead a privilege. It's not in the constitution so his statement is technically true... but if that is indeed the logic behind it, then we may as well note that under that train of thought that we can thus deny people the privilege to have children, houses, pets, or even be able to divorce. Try to say it in as many different was as one wants, the result that we can only get marred as dictated by the country, but what Zeo has failed to prove is that this is what the country wants, a no same sex marriage ban. Otherwise it would of been implemented by if not for two things:

1. A fairly large number of people who want it.

2. Equal rites. Denying people the ability to do the same things as other people is disruptive of their civil liberties.

I've already made what I think is a logical argument about the population. Now when it comes to civil liberties, some say it doesn't trample their rites, just deny's them the privilege that traditional couples have. Well people used to say the same about Jim Crow laws. For those of you outside the US, Jim Crow Laws were laws that allowed segregation and second rate quality of living for minority blacks. The idea was that the law would allow equal standards of living while still keeping people separated, it wasn't the case. The reality was that blacks were practically abused by the majority. Now you can see where I am heading with this... the ban on gay marriage is in many regards the same thing, you could be denying someone the same privileges that the common folk have simply because they are gay. Thus they aren't equal under the constitution, and according to the constitution you have to have equal privileges and rites. So eventually you are going to have to change the laws to allow them to either get married, or have an equivalent otherwise you are breaking federal law at the core and any law of a lower level like the state law, will have to be repealed.

Now you can argue that it's also unnatural, that being homosexuality. Well it feels unnatural to me, and probably to most too. It doesn't fit with our biological makeup since we can't reproduce. But if you think about it, gay love isn't about reproduction... It's simply love, a common human emotion and concept virtually all human beings understand and feel what love is. Note that I said most, there are a few individuals who suffer from mental illness's that hamper the ability. But we really can't count them I guess. It serves a different biological function then reproduction, since love is indeed something that extends to family, friends, pets, and even objects. So logic applied to the illogical that is love would suggest that it's actually natural as a function both homosexuals and heterosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter too.)

My view on marriage and how some of the states in the USA see it is that nothing more then contract stating you are in love and thus will devote yourselves to one another exclusively. Whether or not the term "Marriage" will be exclusively presented as a union of love between man and woman and exclude same sex is yet to be seen. I honestly see little reason to make it exclusive though since marriage has already been used for gays in history. So an argument saying that it's always been between a man and a woman is usually out of uninformed ignorance.

One also can't argue that homosexuality threatens society or a culture. So far it's expanded into popular culture, it's helped lead an American TV series into many awards. Many gay's are role models who have done great things like Elton John. I recall Zeo arguing that polygamy just like homosexuality disrupts and damages society... his argument for polygamy was that it helped with over population... wouldn't having gay couple's counter that? Also, there is no evidence that a gay couple can't raise a child properly. There's evidence against single couples, but as it stands a gay couple is in better ground then a single parent thanks to the many points to the single parent having a less viable invoriment for the child. Examples include:

The likely two income's, two rolemodels, a balance of authority, better time share's for bonding and raising the child, something a single parent would have to do less of, and of course, double the effection then a single parent.

Besides, what's wrong with gay adopting a parentless child, far better then them being bounced around in the public system and state (provided they pass the screening like regular couples) Also people seem to forget the benifits of a gay marriage too:

Married couples pay higher taxes. Poeple with stable relationships like marriage tend to be more stable and productive to society. Married couples tend to raise children better then single parents thus likely producing a more production member of society in the future. Their financial situation is likely to be better then in a singles situation, thus they contribute to the economy as well. I can keep going on and on...

Like Zeo, I would actually prefer if marriage in terms remained as a man and woman union, but that's just my upbringing. Having looked over the subject, I really don't see for all purposes and intents in any attempts to make this an exclusive form of a relationship in which a gay couple can share in. Feel free to poke any holes in my logic. But please try to keep it simple though, and I'm sorry if my points weren't simple or short.

It seems that the concept of marriage really has changed over the last few thousands years and from my research within Socio-cultural anthropology. They've had at least one African culture which had a form polygamy where multiple men would marry one woman. Perhaps we can't call it marriage in our culture, but over there it's normal. Same goes for Roman and Greek culture in which gay relationships were promoted and cherished by many.

In our case right now with gay marriage is that our culture has traditionally been against it, also the current view in it is that marriage is sacred, and that Gay's marrying is unnatural in both biological aspects and religious. But that is where things get biased...

All I'm saying is that marriage isn't a clearly defined concept, and that it comes in many different forms. The fact society is divided over the concept means that times are changing, thus our culture and religions have become more open/tolerant of the concept. 50 years ago you could easily of seen a mob go lynch a gay man in public in the middle of the night while singing show tunes. Rather people like it or not, gay marriage is going to happen down the road in one form or another down the road. The question I'm really being asked by my view in society is "Are we ready for this?" Sort of how like 20-30 years ago people were asking the same thing about gays coming out of the closet.

So if we were to allow gay marriage to happen, we'd have to have have it recognised in courts. Much like how desegregation was only finally implemented through the courts. Otherwise a new term should be created.

the dozen or so colonies actualy dropped on earth in Gundam X don't count?