jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (62 posts)

homosexual marriage?

  1. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    why?

    1. profile image0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yawn.

  2. mythbuster profile image86
    mythbusterposted 6 years ago

    why not?

  3. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Who cares?

    1. schoolgirlforreal profile image75
      schoolgirlforrealposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      (Just to make a point my friend smile -thou I'm neutral really-
      this question bugs religious people as religion bugs you!)

  4. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    they must. otherwise,why would you attach yourself to something that condemns you?

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Attach to what exactly? Each other...sure. To your religious beliefs...probably not. But, the bigger question is why do you care whether or not they get married. You are not marrying either of them...so what difference does it make?

      I'm serious, you religious folk need to get a life.

    2. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maraige doesn't condemn anyone.  And marraige predates Christianity so Christians don't own it.

  5. lrohner profile image84
    lrohnerposted 6 years ago

    Condemns who?

  6. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    You are a quick-change artist, Irohner:-). I went and put my sock puppet outfit on so I could be just like you!

    As to the question: YES.

    1. lrohner profile image84
      lrohnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Better? smile

  7. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    marriage is widely known as a union under God. always has been. why would homosexuals want to attach themselves to something that condemns them?

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They are not attaching themselves to a union with a god. They are using the more modern definition of marriage. One that is absent of a god.

      You know, the one created by man. Duh! hmm

      1. OpinionDuck profile image59
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The modern marriage is called a civil union.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Only by stupidity of the those who are religious and because of the religious establishment. Eliminate that, and marriage can be whatever it wants. wink

    2. rebekahELLE profile image92
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      so. if a marriage is a union under God, why do so many end in divorce?

      marriage is a union between two people.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      By whom? The Hindus? The Shintoists? They get to have a full marriage under the law, and they don't worship the God of Abraham.

      Try another argument, one not steeped in religion.

    4. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, the question is why do people think that homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage in any way?

      How is it a threat in this case?

      Please explain.

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps your religion condemns gays but that's not true of other, more enlightened ones, who welcome gays and lesbians in their congregations and pulpits.

    6. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      God doesn't condemn homosexuals

      1. mythbuster profile image86
        mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Deborah Sexton... along with your next 4 posts, too!

        I'm pretty sure it is actually as simple as all this! IMHO, anyway.

  8. profile image0
    AMBASSADOR BUTLERposted 6 years ago

    Look at the rest of creation. They function as they should which is built into them. There are some species that do produce in a asexual way and that is because it was built into them ,like certain flowers and other species that i do not have knowledge about but it does exists out there. Man was not built in an asexual way. Man can choose this way freely and get the automatic results from this as an human being.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Marriage is not always a union under God. Plenty of marriages take place in the justice of the peace's office.

  10. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    I never said I was religious. I was curious as to why homosexual couples would want to attach themselves to something that is opposed to them. Can't you read? I typed it extra-slow.

    1. JBeadle profile image68
      JBeadleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why do adulterers attach themselves to it?  Why do thieves?  Why do those who take the lord's name in vain?  Why do those who covet their neighbors attach themselves.  Everyone is a sinner and not to be judges so it is said.  If it has nothing to do with religion then laws should protect all humans equally - including the right to form a union/marriage.  What's the big deal?

    2. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      _______________________________________
      If indeed you do like women, can you help it? Weren't you born that way?
      This has been rehashed over and over

  11. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    A justice of the peace wasn't permitted to marry people of the same gender untill these laws were in effect.

  12. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    So do polygamy laws have any weight,then?

  13. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    here's why:

    If my lesbian friend's life partner gets into a life-threatening accident, and she wants to see her life partner at the hospital...

    she can't. Because they aren't married - the law prevents them from doing so (along with law-reflecting hospital policies).

    That's one reason - you not being able to see the person you love on your death bed.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There are many discriminatory laws that hurt homosexuals, and there are bone ignorant religionists to support them.

  14. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    I think that what a homosexual person is 'attaching themselves' to when they get married is another homosexual person.

    When I got married, I 'attached myself', made a commitment to and 'joined together' with my wife through the marriage union.

    My union with my wife has a strong religious component since I am a Christian and since we were married in a Church.

    Other people's union, whether they be straight or homosexual, may or may not have a religious component based upon their specific religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    I can fully understand how people might want to join together and unite formally as couple through marriage, even if they don't necessarily see their bond isn't a religious union.

  15. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    thank you,evan. I just wanted to know the purpose.

  16. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    The other thing is, if we redefine marriage, don't we have to abolish all Polygamy,adultery,statutory,bestiality and incest laws? You can't redefine something for one purpose only, that's the very heart of their arguement in the first place,isn't it?

    1. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So if you think marraige is only for Christian people, you would support atheists being banned from marrying?  Whatabout infertile people?

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "if we redefine marriage, don't we have to abolish all Polygamy,adultery,statutory,bestiality and incest laws?"

      That doesn't logically follow. I'll explain why, and I'll type extra slowly. smile

      Polygamy (historically) usually involves either deception (when a man marries two women and neither wife is aware of the other) or coercion (when a young girl is intimidated into marrying into a group marriage). IF a group of several people want to marry, and all of them are informed consenting adults, then no problem. But most polygamy isn't done only with informed consenting adults.

      Adultery is, legally speaking, breach of contract, not a criminal act. Nobody goes to jail for committing adultery, but it is grounds for divorce.

      Statutory? I assume you mean statutory rape? Again, we're dealing with someone who isn't an informed consenting adult. Not the same thing at all.

      Bestiality? There is scientific evidence that sexual contact between humans and other species is a disease vector for drug-resistant cross-species viruses and bacteria, so there's an actual reason to prohibit that. Plus, no animal can give its informed, adult consent.

      Incest, that is, sexual intercourse between close relatives, generates a higher rate of birth defects. That's why we don't let brothers and sisters get married.

      So, all of the other stuff you say is exactly the same as homosexual marriage actually has a rational reason why it's prohibited.

      Can you give me a rational reason (one that is empirically provable, not one steeped in mysticism) why homosexual marriage should be prohibited? I bet you can't.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That says it all.

    3. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Polygamy,statutory,bestiality  Hurts others and I don't know where you live but there are no adultery laws where I live.

      Homosexuality hurts no one.

      Why do you care what others are doing in their personal lives?

  17. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    I actually am more interested in law redefinition than homosexuality,or unions or whatever. It concerns me when the people vote on something democratically, and it gets overturned by one man on the same principle that outlaws incest,polygamy and other marriage laws. I never said marriage was christian or any other denomination. The laws are the focus here.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you believe that some laws should not be allowed to be passed, even if they enjoy majority support?

      If a majority of Americans could vote to reinstitute slavery, should they be allowed to?

  18. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    Religon has no place here. This is clearly a question of laws, and has no anti-homosexual sentiment whatsoever. Do you have someone there who can read the posts to you?

  19. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    the over-rule of the american vote is a big deal. Doesn't really matter what the issue is. Rewriting laws to accomodate a select few while at the same time destroying the integrity of the laws is a very significant moment in american history. Despite being considered unconstitutional, the laws were written for certain reasons. These reasons were subject to american vote. The bill is not a breakthrough in civil rights, it is an attack on democracy. Can anyone see that?

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No. I see a homophobe hiding behind the question. smile

    2. JBeadle profile image68
      JBeadleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Amending laws is a part of the constitution - it is a living document.  Laws are subject to change.  There is no "lock" - we always get to revisit.  It's called freedom.  The fact that our laws aren't fixed and can be changed/over-ruled/re-written is a part of what America represents.  You wish to suppress one of our greatest freedoms?

    3. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hit the Reply button. No one knows which person's post you're responding to.

      The reason we are a constitutional republic, and not a direct democracy, is that there are certain rights enshrined in the Constitution that can not be legislated away. You can NOT pass a law, even if it enjoys majority support in an election, that discriminates and makes a second class of citizenry.

      If you can't understand that, then I suggest you try to understand why we have a constitution in the first place.

  20. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    wrong. it's not a disease,I can't catch it or anything. I am straight,but It truly bothers me to see due process fail to appease some liberals in California. I don't have to hide! this is just a forum,nothing very important. It is shocking that noone can see my point because of their own opinion. Do they realize that popular opinion is what is under attack by removing the vote as you see it?

    1. JBeadle profile image68
      JBeadleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Everything that is done is done within the American system.  Do you have a problem with how America governs itself?

      1. JBeadle profile image68
        JBeadleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It seems to me JR likes how Iraq runs their government.  I think you'd find they are in total agreement with your stance on homosexual marriage and amendable laws.  Maybe you want us to adopt the policies of Iraq?  I don't.

    2. mythbuster profile image86
      mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      should laws be allowed, based on majority votes, on issues clearly detrimental to people?

      ie: homophobia is clearly a phobia - fear of or detrimental prejudice against homosexuals... it's an erroneous, irrational fear...

      Now - just because people have these irrational fears based on prejudices, misunderstandings and negative prejudices, if a majority feels these same irrational fears, etc., and the majority votes the same way (against same gender marriages) - this is okay?

      For the sake of democracy and the American way?

    3. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ___________________________________________
      America is based on freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

      The 9th amendment was written a long time ago. Making laws that do not allow homosexuals to marry, actually breaks their Constitutional rights. That is why the laws are changing.

      What you are really proposing, although you didn't realize it, is to overthrow the 9th amendment

  21. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    It wasn't with this bill! That is what I have been saying all along! 1 judge overturned a vote of 7,000,000! That isn't a very good example of how America governs itself? And what is the new law? Just for gays? What about the rights of polygamists, or the incestuous? Are their civil rights less important than the homosexuals? See the issue?

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No. I see homophobia. You give yourself away in lumping homosexuality with the others. smile

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The reason we have stuff like judicial review is to protect individuals from what the founders called "the tyranny of the mob."

      1. mythbuster profile image86
        mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I love this!

        Kudos!

  22. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    The bill is about homosexuals. I'm not homophobic at all. i could care less if you were gay. I don't like our system used like dictatorship, like how Iraq does it,JBeadle. I have one opinion on american civics, and now I am considered a homophobe,or a dictator. As for re-installing slavery, that goes against the constitution,but why let that bother you,now?

  23. A la carte profile image60
    A la carteposted 6 years ago

    I am pleased. No-one can help their sexual preference and gays have a hard enough time of it. They are people to so lets just give them the same rights and privileges we have. To be honest..in  a free society it is an abomination that they have to campaign for equal rights.

  24. J.R. Smith profile image61
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    Unreal. Everyone likes to avoid the issue in order to accuse me of homophobia. So be it. The vote was still passed in a way that was against American freedoms. It doesn't matter what I believe. What will happen when the same thing happens on a bill you don't like? What if the bill was for banning gay marriage? You would be irate if your vote didn't matter!

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who's accusing you of homophobia?

      Do you read the posts fully before responding?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Earnest kinda did...hmm

    2. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's like the civil rights riots of the 60's, ERA of the 70's. Of course there's going to be wild opposition for a while, but in the end, human rights will prevail, and the issue of gay marriage will be a has-been.

      It ISN'T about gay rights. It's about HUMAN RIGHTS.

      I get so tired of these special interest groups waving their "poor me" flag. Band together and work for HUMAN RIGHTS. That way nobody gets left out.

      Sheesh.

      1. A la carte profile image60
        A la carteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        nice one

      2. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I love you.  miss ya

  25. TheOneWhoKnows profile image61
    TheOneWhoKnowsposted 6 years ago

    I don't care really, because they will ''legalize'' that, it's just matter of time, unfortunately

 
working