Same sex Marriage

[RangerM]

Strict ideological principles never really work.

Exactly. Notions of "equality" are nice in theory, but implacable.

[suv_guy_19]

Exactly. Notions of "equality" are nice in theory, but implacable.

 

Equality is one of the things that we should always strive for though. We can do better...and we will. To reach equality you don't have to be an ideologue.

[RangerM]

Equality is one of the things that we should always strive for though. We can do better...and we will. To reach equality you don't have to be an ideologue.

I don't have a problem with that; hence my advocacy of civil unions. I could be wrong in my opinion, and am willing to listen. However compelling someone's case, there are always other views that should be considered by both sides.

[suv_guy_19]

I usually agree that both sides should be explored, but in this debate, I don't see two sides. Gays marrying affects no one but them...and so it should be allowed. Whether or not a few other people are offended by it is irrelevant. I'm glad that you're willing to at least explore the issue, and maybe that makes you a better person than me when it comes to this, but this is something that I can't see the other side of.

[joihan777]

I usually agree that both sides should be explored, but in this debate, I don't see two sides. Gays marrying affects no one but them...and so it should be allowed. Whether or not a few other people are offended by it is irrelevant. I'm glad that you're willing to at least explore the issue, and maybe that makes you a better person than me when it comes to this, but this is something that I can't see the other side of.

 

It doesn't affect just them. If homosexual civil unions are allowed to be called "Marriage," which it has never been since the word was created, then California public schools MUST teach that homosexuality is "Normal," which has never been considered so either.

 

It isn't about rights of people to bastardize a word, it is about homosexuals trying to brainwash our children.

 

And THAT is when it gets personal!

[Deanh]

It doesn't affect just them. If homosexual civil unions are allowed to be called "Marriage," which it has never been since the word was created, then California public schools MUST teach that homosexuality is "Normal," which has never been considered so either.

 

It isn't about rights of people to bastardize a word, it is about homosexuals trying to brainwash our children.

 

And THAT is when it gets personal!

see what I mean...next up seperate schools OR classes OR some typwe of SPECIAL treatment/ catering, they could NOT make such matters mandatory there would be an uproar...in all sincerity I consider myself pretty open minded, however I would NOT send my children to a school that embraced and taught this lifestyle, and based on the majority vote on Prop 8* ( obviously being dis-regarded ), most others would AGREE with that statement....so, where are MY rights as a Hetrosexual AND my hetrosexual childs?

[grbeck]

Actually I believe that the same interests should be protected for gay coupes who choose to marry. I see no reason they should not be treated equally to heterosexual couples who choose to marry rather than live together without government recognition. The choice to marry or not should not be anybody elses business. Certainly it should not be left up to a vote. If tomorrow someone was able to convince enough people to vote that Jews should not be able to marry, I would feel the same way.

 

Do you support the legalization of polygamy, too? Given the number of Mormons and Muslims in this country, I would wager that there are more people who want to marry more than one spouse than people who want to marry a spouse of the same sex. Yet, the government is telling them that they cannot do this.

[macattak1]

see what I mean...next up seperate schools OR classes OR some typwe of SPECIAL treatment/ catering, they could NOT make such matters mandatory there would be an uproar...in all sincerity I consider myself pretty open minded, however I would NOT send my children to a school that embraced and taught this lifestyle, and based on the majority vote on Prop 8* ( obviously being dis-regarded ), most others would AGREE with that statement....so, where are MY rights as a Hetrosexual AND my hetrosexual childs?

 

Still somewhat in tact unless you live in CA or Main?

 

It really would be one thing if it was just marriage. But of course it is not. It never was and never will be. Because along with gay marriage comes the whole rest of the platter. And they will force it on our kids first.

 

And the funny thing is that they will not teach the kids that its normal. The material used in schools thus far uses terms like 'different', as in not 'normal'. So in theory they are not normal. But in all other ways they must be treated as normal so that there is no right or wrong about it.

 

Personally, I find school indoctrination of K-12 graders with regard to homosexuality amazing for a state the does not recognize gay marriage...

 

Peace and Blessings

[jpd80]

Do you support the legalization of polygamy, too? Given the number of Mormons and Muslims in this country, I would wager that there are more people who want to marry more than one spouse than people who want to marry a spouse of the same sex. Yet, the government is telling them that they cannot do this.

Good point, I think Muslims obey respective country laws that require monogamous marriage but

where polygamy is allowed, the husband has to prove that he can support his wives and children.

I doubt that many situations like that could be proved in the US.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Do you support the legalization of polygamy, too? Given the number of Mormons and Muslims in this country, I would wager that there are more people who want to marry more than one spouse than people who want to marry a spouse of the same sex. Yet, the government is telling them that they cannot do this.

 

 

No I don't support polygamy. There is no comparison between two people of what ever gender making a commitment to each other and enjoying the benefits of marriage and multiple party arrangements. The reason I don't support polygamy is that the practice would result in multiple people ebing entitled to the same benefits. The number 2 doesn't discriminate. Even Civil Unions are limited to 2 people.

 

I find it interesting that many who oppose gay marriage are quick to bring up polygamy. Some less principaled add beastiality, incest and child marriage (Rick Santorum).

[Mark B. Morrow]

see what I mean...next up seperate schools OR classes OR some typwe of SPECIAL treatment/ catering, they could NOT make such matters mandatory there would be an uproar...in all sincerity I consider myself pretty open minded, however I would NOT send my children to a school that embraced and taught this lifestyle, and based on the majority vote on Prop 8* ( obviously being dis-regarded ), most others would AGREE with that statement....so, where are MY rights as a Hetrosexual AND my hetrosexual childs?

 

 

As far as I know Deanh, no one is forcing you or your children to marry people of the same gender. I would guess the same arguments were made in the '50s and '60s by people who didn't want their children to go to school with black kids and didn't want their kids to be taught that all races were equal.

[suv_guy_19]

It isn't about rights of people to bastardize a word, it is about homosexuals trying to brainwash our children.

 

And THAT is when it gets personal!

 

 

I can't believe these types of prejudices still exist in the year 2009. Homosexuality has been proven to be completely natural and it hurts no one. No one is trying to brainwash people either, they are only teaching understanding and acceptance, and nothing bad can come of either of those two things in this case.

Edited May 30, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[mettech]

My issue is the definition of the word "Marriage" being used for the same sex family and not the social legal benefits issues. Marriage for the past 5000 years has always been associated with a man and a woman joining together with the intent to produce and raise children from each other.

 

To change that definition is wrong. That would be like a group of people wanting to change the meaning of "dinner" because they only each supper and are unable to afford dinner.

 

 

The legal joining of the same sex should have a different name. Just think of a new name to call it.

[mettech]

I can't believe these types of prejudices still exist in the year 2009. Homosexuality has been proven to be completely natural and it hurts no one. No one is trying to brainwash people either, they are only teaching understanding and acceptance, and nothing bad can come of either of those two things in this case.

 

 

Would you let another guy suck your cock or screw you in the ass?

 

Do you believe that that is "natural"? And let me know if it didn't hurt.

[Ron W.]

Whether a couple refers themselves as "married" or not means nothing (to me) as a private matter. The question is whether or not the State does (or should).

 

Agreed

 

 

A woman's right to choose has nothing to do with men...it's not our body.

 

But what if the father want's to keep the child? After all he was involved in the conception.

 

 

I usually agree that both sides should be explored, but in this debate, I don't see two sides.

 

 

A difference in words why is a female called she and a male called he, should we all be called people?

Why is a black person called black, a white person called white, an Asian called Asian a Mexican called Mexican, again shouldn't we all be called people? By your posts I believe you would think yes but in order to be more specific when describing a person or situation we use words. The same reason we have there - their - they're or through - threw - thru. It's just words.

[suv_guy_19]

Would you let another guy suck your cock or screw you in the ass?

 

Do you believe that that is "natural"? And let me know if it didn't hurt.

 

Wow.....alright then.

[suv_guy_19]

Marriage is a legal contract of the joining of two people. There is no reason to use a different word for each combination of people. There is also no reason to use a separate word because it creates a difference that is unnecessary. It's like making people ride at the back of the bus because they're different. We stopped doing that a few years ago...and in time we will stop singling out homosexuals as well.

[macattak1]

No I don't support polygamy. There is no comparison between two people of what ever gender making a commitment to each other and enjoying the benefits of marriage and multiple party arrangements. The reason I don't support polygamy is that the practice would result in multiple people ebing entitled to the same benefits. The number 2 doesn't discriminate. Even Civil Unions are limited to 2 people.

 

I find it interesting that many who oppose gay marriage are quick to bring up polygamy. Some less principaled add beastiality, incest and child marriage (Rick Santorum).

 

Don't you think that if they excluded those deviants from protection from the hate crimes laws people would be less likely to make a comparasin? Seems like it to me. I am not much for hate crimes period. But when they wont exclude those you just listed tells me there is something more in the water then they are telling me. And I think a lot of others feel the same way. But they refuse to exclude those groups and many others. Cause for concern?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Marriage is a legal contract of the joining of two people. There is no reason to use a different word for each combination of people. There is also no reason to use a separate word because it creates a difference that is unnecessary. It's like making people ride at the back of the bus because they're different. We stopped doing that a few years ago...and in time we will stop singling out homosexuals as well.

 

You equate using a different word for same sex marriage as riding in the back of the bus? Really?

 

You are right. You can not see the other side of the argument. Maybe you should recuse yourself?

[suv_guy_19]

To gays the difference seems to be huge. They don't want to be treated differently, they want to be accepted and they want to have the same rights as other couples. As far as I'm concerned, there is no other side. People being offended by something that doesn't do them any harm just isn't an argument. I also don't buy that allowing things like his will cause the downfall of soceity or a decent to hell.

 

Blacks could still ride the bus after all....they just had to sit in the back. The more I think of it, the less of a difference I see.

Edited May 30, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[mettech]

Marriage is a legal contract of the joining of two people. There is no reason to use a different word for each combination of people. There is also no reason to use a separate word because it creates a difference that is unnecessary. It's like making people ride at the back of the bus because they're different. We stopped doing that a few years ago...and in time we will stop singling out homosexuals as well.

 

That is not the historic definition of Marriage.

 

There is only one reason that men produce sperm and only one reason that women produce eggs. And the proper time for them to meet is when a man and a women is married.

 

If someone wanted to marry a goat, should that be permitted?

 

Should a person be allowed to be married to more than one person at a time?

 

Should a person be allowed to marry someone below the age of 12 years old?

[mettech]

To gays the difference seems to be huge. They don't want to be treated differently, they want to be accepted and they want to have the same rights as other couples. As far as I'm concerned, there is no other side. People being offended by something that doesn't do them any harm just isn't an argument. I also don't buy that allowing things like his will cause the downfall of soceity or a decent to hell.

 

Blacks could still ride the bus after all....they just had to sit in the back. The more I think of it, the less of a difference I see.

 

 

Just because a white guy can sing rap, it don't make him black.

 

Just because a black guy can sing like Whaling Jennings, it don't make him white.

 

Two people of the same sex living legally with all of the benefits as a couple doesn't make it a marriage.

 

The word marriage was taken 5000 years ago to describe a man and woman living legally together.

 

I'm not against same sex couples wanting to join legally together, but call it something else.

[jpd80]

Should a person be allowed to marry someone below the age of 12 years old?

 

Is that you Jerry Lee Lewis?

[macattak1]

As Lincoln said, you can call a dog's leg a tail, but that does not mean a dog has 5 legs.

 

What is a civil union? Is there such thing? Does it mean the same rights as 'marriage'? Do people get it in place of something...like marriage?

 

Hmmmm, why can we not just call it a Civil Union? Because its not about that. Its about destroying one thing to make it into another. The destruction of a Christian social structure to appease the destroyers.

 

Just like Obama. There would be no issue if he just released his Birth Cert. But he won't! All the trouble he is causing.

Just like gay marriage. They could just call it a civil union or what not. But they won't! All the trouble they are causing.

 

Watching the Tudor's tonight. Henry the VIII must have every one approve of his anulment to Katherin and marriage to Ann. And he will not just let people ignore it. He MUST force them to sign and oath that they accept or they don't sign and go to jail. Because he is Just That Important!

 

The gays could have their cake and eat it to. They could force a civil union which is already there and what oppened the door for this anyway. Then they would have everything they want. Oh, but they want more then that! They want My Cake and they want to eat My Cake too!

 

Talk about selfish.

 

And enough of the comparisons to blacks already. Homosexuality is not illegal. Gays have never been treated any worse then any other group of people and can in no way be compared to what Blacks went through. Blacks were seen as Non Human!

 

Peace and Blessings

[tommyturbo]

Hmmmm, why can we not just call it a Civil Union? Because its not about that. Its about destroying one thing to make it into another. The destruction of a Christian social structure to appease the destroyers.

 

And enough of the comparisons to blacks already. Homosexuality is not illegal. Gays have never been treated any worse then any other group of people and can in no way be compared to what Blacks went through. Blacks were seen as Non Human!

 

Peace and Blessings

Actually some of the comments on here have been pretty degrading and suggestive of gay people being non human. Not all gay folks are pervertsand child molestors as there has been a common reference to that as well. Oh and if I am not mistaken Hitler saw gays as non human and did murder many along with the jews.

As for homosexuality being illegal, I believe there are several states that still have laws on the books about sodomy and other acts often associated with homosexuality. I've read of stories in the news not long ago of people still fighting these laws, mostly in the southern states. Most states ignore them now, but I've heard stories of folks in the last 10 years being charged with them.

 

And Although the founding fathers did definitly have a christian background, mostly prodestant, they did not support or encourage a state sponsored religion. Therefore we as a country really techinially should not follow such christin social structure as a guideline for legal rulings anyway. Courts need to look at things from an unbiased standpoint and leave religion out. So that said how will gay mariage hurt you? It won't, your just scared or deeply homophobic.

 

Simple way to solve all this bullshit about marying pets/animals and bigamy is simply state two adult people over 18 may marry. Each one being maried exclusivly to the other. Sex is irrelivant. By the way these arguments are the lamest and most childish I have ever heard.