homosexual marriage?

1. 58

   J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

   why?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yawn.

      replyreport
2. 73

   mythbusterposted 13 years ago

   why not?

   replyreport
3. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Who cares?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      schoolgirlforrealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
4. 58

   J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
5. 68

   lrohnerposted 13 years ago

   Condemns who?

   replyreport
6. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      lrohnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Better?

      replyreport
7. 58

   J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The modern marriage is called a civil union.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   3. 75

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   4. 64

      Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   5. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      God doesn't condemn homosexuals

      replyreport
      1. 73

         mythbusterposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
8. 0

   AMBASSADOR BUTLERposted 13 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.

   replyreport
9. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
10. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       JBeadleposted 13 years agoin 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?

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin 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

       replyreport
11. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

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

    replyreport
12. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

    So do polygamy laws have any weight,then?

    replyreport
13. 59

    Evan G Rogersposted 13 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.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
14. 63

    Greek Oneposted 13 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.

    replyreport
15. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

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

    replyreport
16. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
    2. 75

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin 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.
       
       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.

       replyreport
       1. 69

          Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That says it all.

          replyreport
    3. 0

       Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin 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?

       replyreport
17. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin 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?

       replyreport
18. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
19. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
    1. 82

       earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       No. I see a homophobe hiding behind the question.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       JBeadleposted 13 years agoin 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?

       replyreport
    3. 89

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin 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.

       replyreport
20. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       JBeadleposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
       1. 81

          JBeadleposted 13 years agoin 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.

          replyreport
    2. 73

       mythbusterposted 13 years agoin 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?

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin 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

       replyreport
21. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
    1. 82

       earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
    2. 75

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin 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."

       replyreport
       1. 73

          mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I love this!
          
          Kudos!

          replyreport
22. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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?

    replyreport
23. 60

    A la carteposted 13 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.

    replyreport
24. 58

    J.R. Smithposted 13 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!

    replyreport
    1. 89

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Who's accusing you of homophobia?
       
       Do you read the posts fully before responding?

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Earnest kinda did...

          replyreport
    2. 64

       Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin 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.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          A la carteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          nice one

          replyreport
       2. 0

          kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I love you.  miss ya

          replyreport
25. 59

    TheOneWhoKnowsposted 13 years ago

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

    replyreport