Gay Marriage vs Traditional Marriage

1. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   Traditional marriage is bad.  Listening to opponents of California prop 8 there is no other conclusion.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What is wrong with a man and a woman getting married?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely nothing.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yet you opened this topic stating that traditional marriage was inherently 'bad.'

            replyreport
   2. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How clever to set up a proposition that you have to vote against it to vote for equality.
      Confusing, much?
      By design.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not trying to be clever, just want people to think.  You have hit the nail on the head,

         replyreport
   3. 77

      kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, we should go back to the days when we 'sold' out kids into marriage for goats and such. Love really did ruin the institution of marriage......

      replyreport
2. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 12 years ago

   Keep fighting the good fight.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      +36

      replyreport
3. 75

   brimancandyposted 12 years ago

   It gets kind of tiring hearing all the BS about marriage has always been between a mad and a woman, all over the world. Yes, and it has also been between a man and 20 women, a man and a child bride, and wives have also been purchased like a pair of pants. So what's the big deal? Get over this Bible BS.
   
   At any rate, I think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. What makes straight marriage so damn sacred? You see married couples all the time who are more screwed up than any gay couple could even dream to be. I'll give you an example.
   
   When I was younger my brother's had this friend named Jeff. He was 19, and just a really good looking nice guy. Well, he was marrying this bitch, and everyone was warning him that she was a whore. But, he insisted on marrying her anyways. Well, come to find out, the night before his wedding he walks in and finds her in his bed having sex with another guy. He was in tears, but still vowed to marry her anyways. We all tried to talk him out of it. I felt so sorry for him. Why would you do that to yourself? But, nothing that we said was working.
   
   So, being that I was gay, and he was pretty hot, and a nice guy. I gave him a big hug, and said. You know what. If you want, I'll marry you, and then you won't have to marry her. He looked at me and his face got so red, and he laughed, and, said in the mood I am in I probably would. I hate that bitch. The next day they got married. DOH!!! Marriage lasted 6 months, they divorced, and then she sued him for alimony, of which with many witnesses to her bitchness, she didn't get jack.
   
   So, you tell me. Who deserves to get married again? Why dose one couple rate so much higher than another just because of their gender? I'm not saying that gays and lesbians won't have their share of marriage horror stories. But, shouldn't they at least be given the choice to try? Why deny it?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are really good friend. Divorce is messy regardless of whose getting divorced.

      replyreport
4. 61

   kessposted 12 years ago

   Male/Female communion is meant to reflect  'the marriage' (the union of  the two becoming one). Therefore it is not the marriage itself, but the image of it.
   So the more accurate this reflection is the more marriage is  seen (understood).
   
   The male and the female is an image of the individuality that makes up the two.
   The male and female label is indicative of the unique individual characteristics of each one of the two, and by these collective traits, makes and defines the bond of unity, the marriage.
   
   When the bond is made, they become ONE
   They are no longer two male and female. This is the marriage.
   If the bond is not made they remain male and female separate because of their individuality...
   And as long as their own individuality remains they are two thus not married.
   Though they  still relate to each other they are not married.
   
   So 'gay marriage' is merely an image, reflecting the image of  the male/female communion, which is an image of marriage and not 'the marriage' itself.
   
   We eventually see that the argument surrounding legitimate marriage, can be described as the images conflicting with each other images.
   Neither, not accepting that they are mere images but considering themselves the original thus legitimate marriage.
   
   If either one would accept themselves to be what they are, then they would have the ability to see/understand exactly what marriage is.
   
   For after all, it is the marriage that is responsible for the confusion of images and without the marriage none of the images would even exist.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Athena Claraposted 12 years ago

   In all honesty, marriage is simply love, and the product of love is children.  Yes, some people are not able to bear children due to medical or psychological reasons but that isn't their inherent fault.  Gays and lesbians are at fault though.  They are not able to bear children naturally with their lovers, and their children are not the product of love, but the product of artificial conception or adoption.  Gays and lesbians are a pool of people who have been fighting for marriage not now, but from a very, very long time.  And now that they are being accepted more and more in society, another pool of people - whether it is child brides, bestiality, you name it - will begin fighting for marriage.  That's reality. 
   Saying traditional marriage is bad is like saying it's not right for children to be born through natural conception to a man and a woman who are committed to one another for life.
   By the way, divorce is an entirely different topic.  Anyone can get divorced - a man and a woman, or a man and a man.  It's pointless to bring divorce into a conversation about who should legally be allowed to marry.
   
   I am not one to judge others, since I - just like everyone else in this forum - am not perfect.  But this is my view.  I don't hate anyone based on creed, belief, skin color, etc.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No...not judging anyone at all
      
      "Gays and lesbians are at fault though."

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Athena Claraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Touche.  What can I say?  I wanted to express my opinion! 
         
         What I mean by "not judging anyone" is I won't hate someone based on the fact that they're gay, whether or not I agree with gayness regardless.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            To the person who is gay, whether you "agree with gayness" matters not one jot. But the fact that you feel you need to make your last statements indicates that you are judgemental. If one of your friends were to tell you that they were gay, what would your reaction be? Would you distance yourself? Feel uncomfortable in their presence? Unless you are completely blind to their sexuality your are making a judgement.
            
            You might also want to read up on some medical research on sexuality and then such statements as "whether or not I agree with gayness" would be meaningless.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Children are the product of sex. It's obvious that love and sex are not synonymous. I assume you think abandoned children are at fault too? By your logic, there could be no  loving bond created in adoption. They weren't born of your love.
      
      People should have the right to think what they want, but I would hope that once you think your post through you'll realize it doesn't make any sense.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Athena Claraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, it does make sense.
         This is a discussion about traditional vs. Gay marriage.  Traditional marriage entails that children are the product of love (sex) between a man and a wife.  Sex outside of marriage has nothing to do with it.  As do adopted kids...

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What about people who choose not to have children but still want to get married. Should it not be called marriage because they will not have children?

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It still makes no sense. Children are not always the product of marriage. Unless you are Catholic and prohibited from making family planning choices.
            
            Straight couples have surrogate mothers, they adopt, they choose not to have children. Your argument doesn't really hold water if you think it through.

            replyreport
   3. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gee... I'm bi-sexual and I pop kids out like Pez.
      
      Gay doesn't mean sterile.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You do realize Melissa, that you should be completely ashamed of yourself? *gives stern look* With big smile

         replyreport
   4. 61

      mikelongposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Your statements about bestiality and child marriage do not reflect reality, but rather your skewed, illogical thinking.
      
      "Traditional marriage" is not "traditional" at all.... Actually, it is another form of Judeo-Christian imperialism around the world. 
      
      When one looks at the history of human intimate relations, he/she will find that the word "traditional" ends up getting thrown out the window..
      
      However, Christians have been trying to erase the history of what life was like before they showed up...  They have worked in nations around the world to alter societies in their image, and deny indigenous roots and ideologies... 
      
      There is a group of indigenous people living in South America (I highlight this one, though it is just one of a multitude of different ways of life in that region, and across the globe) who live separate from post Columbian influences..(no European or other outside influence on their lives and society). There is no marriage whatsoever. At given times, they have procreation rituals, and each man and woman pair differently at different times to produce offspring. There is no concept of permanent bond between one man and one woman.....no ownership, no special rights....nothing... 
      
      All they need are some Christian missionaries to show up and "teach" them about "traditions".....what nonsense....what ethnocentricity passes itself off as "wisdom" and "truth"....

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, that sounds brilliant!  That seems more natural to me.

         replyreport
   5. 58

      autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wow. Children who are conceived naturally are a product of love and those conceived by way of insemination or adoption aren't? And this sick way of looking at procreation has to do with gay marriage how?
      
      I'm sick of hearing the argument that after gays can marry it will move on to these other things. These other things are illegal, being gay is not.
      
      I'm also tired of hearing people proclaim over and over that they don't hate gay people. That's nice but not really the point.

      replyreport
   6. 77

      DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oh...I don't know...Seems all one needs to do to have children is to have sex...marriage, love, Etc...not required...
      
      Now lets take adoption or other than birth means of having children....That, seems to take love...as it isn't an easy process and in most cases, isn't a cheap process either...
      
      I know plenty of male/female couples that end up having children that don't love each other, don't want the kids...ever wonder why there are kids up for adoptions...A good part of them are because the "parents" didn't want them...

      replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

   i will support gays untill the end of time , I know a few ! But marriage between  same  sex people  is wrong ! And its only wrong because it distroys the integrety of marriage , The world's and historys traditional meaning of  marriage doesn't deserve to be altered for the benifit of  a very few........what  for maybe eleven percent gay population , as no one really knows  or can say !  Civil unions was enough or call it whatever you want ........except Marriage !

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Marriage has already been altered many, many times in history...

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         How on earth does it ruin the integrity of marriage?  How?  I simply cannot see it.  Same-sex marriages ruin the integrity of marriage, when either party in that marriage cheats on the other.  It's the lack of commitment to marriage that ruins its integrity.  That can happen in a male-female marriage as equally as in a male-male or female-female marriage.
         
         You said you will support gays until the end of time?  How is 'marriage between same sex people is wrong' a supportive statement?

         replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

   As are all of the issues of  character , virtue , morals and traditions,  change in itself isn't any kind of reason for altering the traditional meaning of marriage .   Change in itself is only a nurotic attempt to seek "happiness" for those who   want more out of " instant gratification"  in this issue ! Leave marriage alone and call yours something else if you are gay !

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No one complained about people who do not get married in a church calling their union a marriage. Are you saying all civil unions cannot be called marriages?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Are you married? I ask because why do you think that gay people getting married somehow devalues yours? If two gay people want to. be married, how does that affect your life or what other people think of your marriage?

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

   I'm only saying that marriage is [or should be more of ] a sacred institution .   Gays and thier causes  should not be allowed to change that , the only reason some states are allowing it to happen ?  Government has no conscience ! First and second they are trying to avoid huge legal expenses of  the anti American ACLU .

   replyreport
   1. 77

      kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What exactly is it about marriage that is 'sacred'?
      Is it to do with God?
      If so, then atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married, or pagans or other godless heathens.
      Is it to do with 2 becoming 1?
      I don't see how 2 men or 2 women becoming 1 in marital bonds is not 2 becoming 1 but a man and a woman is? In both cases it's two individuals coming together as 1, no gender in numbers my friend.
      Is it to do with the ultimate expression of love and commitment and fidelity?
      Again, this is not a gender specific thing, the issue of wanting to display the ultimate in commitment to another isn't more or less depending on the genders of the people involved.
      
      What else is there that could be said to make marriage 'sacred'?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Were not pagans living together in marriage long before the advent of Christianity?  If so, has Christianity not defiled marriage by demanding that only marriage before their God is actually marriage?  And by demanding that only one wife be allowed?  By changing the deep traditions of many peoples regarding their own concepts of marriage?
         
         That American Christians declare that only marriage before their god, following the traditions they declare to be "forever", as the only "sacred" marriage doesn't make it so.  They did indeed change the meaning of marriage just a couple thousand years ago (if you don't believe this, check biblical references to Solomon's wives) but the traditions they promote as the only way to marry are only newcomers to man's long history.  There have been, and still are, many other traditions just as valid.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well said

            replyreport
         2. 73

            Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Excellent

            replyreport
9. 0

   rickyliceaposted 12 years ago

   Gay Marriage vs Traditional Marriage is a false dichotomy, gays have been married in other times and in other cultures, although I think not in the west.
   The idea of marriage as something between one man and women, is something imposed by the Catholic Church.
   Even the bible says that men can have more than one wives, for example If I had a brother and he died, then I should marry his wife as well, even if I was already married.
   
   Adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others. No one has been able to prove that Gays marrying would harm them in any way.

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    Western traditionnal marriage doesn't need to be altered for the benifit  of a few gays who make all of the" noise ", and all for what ? The latest gay fad ....hey lets allow gay marriages for gerbels andhumans ?  Why not let children wed  or adults wed a child ? Change alone is not a  reason for cultural fads!   Liberal expressions of ideals for the sake of liberalizing anything is not good enough , I am married and marriage  is sacred to me !  Altering  historical institutions  for  modern cultural  fads isn't enough of a reason.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I don't have a problem with the churches not blessing a gay marriage. That is their right. I'm simply surprised at how the religious believe it is their duty to ensure secular law abides by their beliefs.
       
       I suppose if there was one place within all of the gospels where Jesus said something like ' Go forth and change the Roman laws and be ye blessed' it would make sense. Or, even if crazy Paul had claimed the Holy Spirit suggested believers should infiltrate the Roman Senate and change the laws the behavior patterns of Christians would seem more reasonable.
       
       Unfortunately, there is no mandate that requires an individual to do anything but keep your own house in order, per their conscience and the moral codes of their religion.  Why do you think this has changed? Why do Christians care about forcing everyone to live by their beliefs?

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It's interesting the way you, not personal, but those who suggest that same sex marriages undermines different sex marriages, always equate gay marriage with that of humans marrying animals and then in the same breath talk about supporting gays all the way. Emm, sounds a bit like I'm not racist, I have  black friends, but....

       replyreport
    3. 73

       Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       In what way is western traditional marriage altered to allow for gay marriage?  It's not altered at all - a man and a woman can still marry in a 'traditional' way, and the rights of gay people to marry do not alter this at all.  In fact, gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with 'traditional' marriage - just like my heterosexual marriage would have nothing to do with yours; every marriage is separate and unique.
       
       Homosexuality is a cultural fad?  Or gay marriage is a cultural fad?  I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality has probably existed for as long as we've been human.  It's natural.  If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be so many of us who felt attracted to the same sex.

       replyreport
11. 78

    Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

    My best friend had lesbian moms, but was straight.
    
    She married a jerk. He was abusive and unkind. Eventually they got divorced.
    
    Guess how he got back at her?
    
    By raping one of the kids on the weekends when he had them at his place. From age 10. He threatened to hurt the girl's little brother or kill her cat if she ever told anyone. It was almost a year before my friend found out, by which time he'd added some of the girl's classmates to his victims.
    
    He's in jail now for life, but that girl will have to deal with this her whole life, and my friend with the guilt of not protecting her daughter or her daughter's friends from the man she married.
    
    Luckily, my friend has two wonderful moms. She moved back across the country to live near them, and the grandmas have been a pillar of support for all three grandkids.
    
    I always see red when I see people talking like the sanctity of m/f marriage like it's always, always perfect, and imagining that gays can never get it right like straight people can. At the same time, I know that's not an example of straight marriage, but an example of one twisted individual.
    
    Gay people quite like traditional marriage, despite such examples. We have parents. We have families. We have straight friends. We love and respect them. We believe in the sanctity of marriage, love, and family. A lot more than some of the celebrated marriages making the news every day. Gays have this crazy idea that marriage is generally a good thing, a lifelong commitment to one's partner.
    
    That's why we want the legal rights to take care of and provide for our families, just like straights do.
    
    But in my home state, a religious minority has spent BILLIONS of dollars over fifteen years trying to get and keep various laws on the books banning gay marriage, which doesn't impact them at all. Just think how many marriage counselling centers, help for laid-off workers whose families often suffer, resources for married couples and kids, sex ed programs, alcohol and drug addiction rehab programs, and other social services those billions of dollars could've funded, if they really wanted to defend the institution of marriage!
    
    And the other irony is, most of the funding for the anti-gay campaign in California was funded by the Church of LDS from Utah. Of course, they are the experts on how the institution of marriage has ALWAYS been between "one man and one woman."
    
    There you go. I'm one of the opponents of prop 8. Please don't put words in my mouth about what I think of heterosexual marriage, because you're exactly wrong. And notice that I speak up on this very rarely; I do not initiate this conversation, only refute what you're saying I believe.

    replyreport
12. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    Here's what you don't  understand  , I do not care that you are gay ! I know gays , a couple quite well !  my problem isn't with gays ,My problem is in  declaring marriage  open to anything and everything , in my state you already had civil unions for legalities ! That wasn't enough .  You can site  a particular marriage of fools  to justify your opinion    about all marriages if you wish . But the one you site is one  and not all marriages . Was that fair ?

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "My problem is in  declaring marriage  open to anything and everything"
       
       No it's not.  Your problem is in declaring marriage to be anything but the narrow definition encompassing the way you have chosen to live your life.  Anything else, any additions or subtractions at all, including those ancient traditions our ancestors from long ago used are to be forbidden.  Only your definition is acceptable.
       
       Were it otherwise, you would not be trying to subtly promote the idea that if gay marriage is to be accepted then any other definition (child marriage, animal marriage, polygamy, etc.) will have to be accepted as well.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You might be able to convince me that gay marriage  is OK if it weren't for GLBT.  Who do Bisexuals want to marry and how would it work without two partners?

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Bisexual people are attracted to people of both sexes. That does not mean they don't believe in monogamy. They marry because they fall in love with someone, that someone might be male or female.
             
             Thanks for the laugh

             replyreport
             1. 58

                MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                It's a common misconception... people have actually congratulated my husband for marrying a bi-sexual.
                
                I blame porn.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Thank you for making that clear.  It wasn't the last time I asked that question,

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      It like this...
                      
                      When a heterosexual person gets married they don't stop being attracted to members of the opposite sex.  It is up to them whether they act on that attraction but if they love their spouse and don't want to hurt them then they don't have sex with anyone else.
                      
                      The same thing goes for bi-sexuals.  I haven't stopped being attracted to women... or other men for that matter.  I love my husband though and having sex with anyone else... regardless of their gender...would be hurting him. 
                      
                      There is absolutely no difference in the end result.  When you enter a committed relationship then you agree not to cheat.  Being bi doesn't mean you are going to cheat any more/less than a heterosexual.
                      
                      I was being flippant when I said I blame porn but it's not entirely inaccurate. There seems to be a segment of the population that views bi-sexuality in terms of threesomes.  Honestly it seems to be a common fantasy among some men.  I am 37 years old and have acknowledged my bi-sexuality since I was 14 or 15.  I have never had a threesome.  I have never had a boyfriend and a girlfriend at the same time while in a committed relationship.  Have some bi-sexuals? Sure.  Then again how many men do you know who have cheated on their wives and vice-versa?
                      
                      The last thing in the world I want is to carry on two relationships at one time.  I don't want a husband AND a wife.  I don't want a spouse and a girlfriend/boyfriend.  Jeez I have enough problems working on the ONE relationship I have. 

                      replyreport
          2. 58

             MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             ROFLMAO...
             
             You realize that bi-sexual doesn't really imply that I require both sexes simultaneously... right?
             
             Alas...my life isn't filled with threesomes and orgies.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Shame, you raised my expectations.

                replyreport
    2. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If there are two people whom you will never see, whether they are a man and a woman or a man and a man getting married, you wouldn't even know. There could be gay marriages occurring every day of the week in your town and those events would just pass by and you would have no knowledge of them.
       
       So, how exactly will the marriage of two people whom you probably will never see in your entire life affect your marriage or you?

       replyreport
       1. 57

          udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Good point.The Bible says that they will be marrying and being given in marriage when the big day comes.

          replyreport
13. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    The simple integrety of one  institution unchanged is what I'm supporting  , call your  union  of souls something else !

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This is the most ridiculous argument of all time.
       
       You guys can't use my word. This particular set of sounds belongs to my religion, and nobody else can use it unless they use it the way I want. We are willing to rip apart the country over it.
       
       It's like a giant Sunday school opened up its doors and all the angry children have come outside, crossed their arms over their chests and, with pouting lower lips, decided to be completely unreasonable. It's a freaking WORD.
       
       There's part of me that, just for the sake of peace and moving on, wants to just throw up my hands and say, "Fine, let them have their stupid word for crying out loud." But then the gates would be open and the stampede of absurd bronze-age justifications would spill forth from the pages of the Bible like a locust swarm, devouring freedom faster than even the health and safety-Nazi's on the left are doing.
       
       Bleh.
       
       [Gowin's Law bedamned]

       replyreport
       1. 89

          wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Wait a minute here, Shades - there may be something to this after all.
          
          Let the law and the people define their marriages, just as they always have through the millennia.  Marriages are for people - let it remain that way.
          
          Let the church define and administer to the "union of souls" ahorseback mentions.  This immaterial and imagined "soul" is the invention and business of the church; let them handle it.
          
          A couple could thus have a "marriage certificate" issued by people and for people.  The church can supply whatever they want for a union of souls; a cross perhaps, or a nail symbolizing both the cross and the joining forever of the souls.

          replyreport
    2. 73

       Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       'call your  union  of souls something else !'  WHAT?!  LOL!  Does marriage belong to your religion?  Hilarious.  Sorry, no, I'm appropriating the word 'marriage', and I'm going to use it however I like!!!  I'm married to myself!

       replyreport
14. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    So lets see ,  yes its a word . Marriage !  I grew up in the sixties and seventies when the entire institution was as challenged as ever by the worst of social revolutions . In a time before now when it was frowned upon greatly to even live together without marrying ! A man and a woman !  Which now , is under attack by the gay parade !  The institution of marriage that once meant something to those willing to commit themselves to one person ? Yes , one word !  Marriage  now defined by same sex couples , whats next man -  child ?  Why not? the man of the couple wants that doesnt he ?   Come on people why not a dog and a woman ?  Someone wants that too !

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The institution is not under attack, some gay people want to share in that institution. Two consenting adults want to get married because they love each other and want to be together forever and commit themselves to one person.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Come, come UW.  They are not "consenting adults" - they are evil, disgusting creatures.  They are the GODLESS, doing whatever they can to ruin and bring down all the right-thinking, God fearing people that they can. 
          
          They must be stamped upon, hard, to prevent the loss of good, heaven bound souls that they want.  They must be despised and cursed for desiring our children for their nefarious deeds.  We must keep our dogs locked indoors for their protection, and even hire bodyguards for the horses because of these DEMONS! 
          
          Excuse my whilst I wipe the froth from my lips - fighting evil is hard work.

          replyreport
    2. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Don't ferget those darn black fellers was a tryin' ter git with yer wimmins back then in that worst of social revolutions, too! And I reckon they done got their way now. Just look at em, a gropin and a breedin' away, steamin' up all that snow white flesh with their black panting breath. I expect that must just set yer guts afire thinkin' about near as much as thinkin' about a pair of gays being happy in the course of their lives without yer say so, too. It's just an outrage, all this love and happiness tryin' ta go on what fer you don't approve.
       
       
       Uh... since when were gay people fighting for polygamy? That's something that certain Christian, Mormon and Islamic religions do. Gays just want to have the same rights as the rest of us. I think your ability to reason is unraveling in the contortions of your outrage.
       
       
       You do realize that the "slippery slope" argument is one of the most generic of all logical fallacies, right up there with the red herring, the non sequitur and the straw man, right? (I already know you don't know that, or you don't care, but I thought it would be fun to ask.)

       replyreport
       1. 89

          wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            +1, Shadesbreath, +1
          
          But "ferget" should be "fergit", "darn" should be "dern", and "wimmin" should be "wimminfolks". 
          
          Still, very well done and got an explosion from me.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, I suppose I shall have to work on my insipidness impression at some point.

             replyreport
    3. 60

       Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I can't believe you typed that.

       replyreport
    4. 77

       kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       In your own post you say "the institution of marriage that once meant something to those willing to commit themselves to one person", this is EXACTLY what 2 adults of the same gender are wanting, you never did answer why its not acceptable for 2 same gender people to want to make a binding commitment to each other in the eyes of any applicable authority?
       
       What we are NOT talking about is the pairing of random animals/objects, we are talking about the unifying of 2 consenting adults, why is it so hard for you to understand this? Children are NOT consenting adults, can you not see that?!?!?! Animals are NOT consenting adults, why can't you understand this?!?!?! This is not rocket science man! 2 consenting adults are very specifically, adults, not children or animals! For them to have the rights that so many straight religious people piss all over (divorce has already ruined your definition of the sacred element of religion, it takes a big ol piss all over it and then farts! and that is just as often from your fellow 'believers') is frankly none of your business and doesn't effect you one bit
       
       Maybe before you get on your high horse about how sacred marriage is, you should get all those straight people who go to church to respect the vow of marriage before you worry about if gay people will too, cause chances are they will do better at respecting their vows then straight people are currently doing. If for no other reason then because to have to fight for something so hard actually can make it sacred, in a way that it isn't when handed to you on a silver platter.

       replyreport
       1. 73

          Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          *Applause*

          replyreport
    5. 71

       Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Ahorseback. I hope you don’t mind that I slip in a request.
       
       I am trying very hard to follow your comments and clearly this issue means an awful lot to you and to your belief structure. I care about why you think the way you do and I hope I can learn from you.
       
       Therefore, if you have time, I would welcome hearing from you about just one aspect of same-sex marriage:
       
       Can you point to one person who is harmed by the marriage of two consulting, same-gender adults?
       
       I not asking about traditions, institutions, beliefs, social structures, animals, children, gay agendas, and such. I am trying to identify persons who are injured by the marriage of two consulting, same-gender adults. 
       
       Your answer is truly important to me! To the best of my knowledge and experience, no one is hurt by such a marriage and I am anxious to learn if you have insight that I lack. I have been married to my bride for 52 years. Our marriage is not threatened by anyone else's marriage regardless of the combinations of genders.
       
       Thank you, Ahorseback, for considering my request. I am looking for to your reply.
       

       replyreport
15. 66

    awareposted 12 years ago

    lions don't marry as a tradition .

    replyreport
16. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    We now live in a culture where only the moral support traditions of any kind , All this issue points to is the fact that in the last fifty years in America , the impulse controls of a free and open society and the revolution of the sixties   have caused our culture to have taken a dive to something similar to the fall of the romans.    And what do you guys do , call me ignorant !   One man and one woman =  Marriage !  The institution is unde attack - if you are trying to change that !.....I am saying call it something else ............why can't you dorks  get that !   Go ahead , drink the cool-aid of modern day  P.C..
    
    Here are a few choices :
    
    -Pairing
    -Joining
    -coupling
    Whatever ....Just leave the word marriage alone!  Pick your own !

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It's a strange paranoia that you have.  How is your 'traditional' marriage under attack?  How?  HOW?!??!   Gay marriage will never affect 'traditional' marriage in any way whatsoever.
       
       No, we'll not call it something, if it's all the same to you.  We'll call it whatever we like - we'll call it 'marriage' because that's what it is.
       
       marriage |ˈmarij|
       noun
       1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
       • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
       
       I didn't add that last bit - it's in my dictionary.

       replyreport
17. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    Shadesbreath , you are more biased  than anyone on these forums !
    
    Troubledman - I live in frikkin Vermont ! They are all around me - grow up!
    
    Uninvited - The institution is under attack - they are altering the tradition !

    replyreport
    1. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So, gay marriages are all around you such that you are unable to escape them? Gay people are destroying your marriage?
       
       Again, how does gay marriage have any affect whatsoever on you and your marriage? Explain those effects? What are they?

       replyreport
    2. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Given that I am not the one declaring that I know with absolute and final certainty for all people what the definition of a single word means, and that from that arrogant certainty I should then be able to impose that meaning for all of time on all others, I can assume that when you say I am "more biased than anyone on the forums" that it translates in the reality outside your bubble to my being the most open-minded and compassionate towards the views of others and the nuances of humanity in all its vast and unbridled uniqueness.

       replyreport
    3. 73

       Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It's not under attack - it really isn't!  I've been to two traditional marriages this year, and they were brilliant, just exactly the same as all of the other traditional marriages I've been to.  Nothing changes there.

       replyreport
18. 61

    mikelongposted 12 years ago

    Ahorseback, you are showing that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    
    The falsehood centers on what you call "traditions" and "morals". It is too bad that your biases blind you from realizing that your views are not truly "traditional".....and have nothing to do with "morality."
    
    Your "fears" are unfounded........and point to a tremendous amount of personal insecurity for some reason...
    
    Get that checked out when you can..

    replyreport
19. 57

    mrnasirposted 12 years ago

    If everyone would be marrying to the people of same gender then there would be no child & no next generation...finish!
    I know some people say that if anyone likes someone and wants to marry, then what's your problem?
    I say, if someone loves dog/cat, and says that he/she wants to marry it then what would you say? Let them do whatever he/she wants...OR will you tell them; what is right & what is wrong.
    We should show them the right path at least just for humanity because we care for each other.
    Some disadvantages of homosexual marriage,take a look:
    http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politic … posed.html

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Dog/Cat argument is a slippery slope. Once again the opponents of equality have to resort to logical fallacy to try to make their point.
       
       Not only that, do you actually believe that if gays are allowed to marry, all male/female sex will abruptly end and humanity will cease to exist?
       
       I mean, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how anyone could even conceive an argument that ridiculous, much less actually believe it. It boggles the mind.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          mrnasirposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I said "IF". I didn't said "IT WILL HAPPEN".I was trying to explain in another way.
          It's your way of thinking.I've clearly said my point, whether you think it's right or wrong.I don't mind.

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             If humanity did 'gay' itself into oblivion that would be a good thing for the Earth, would it not?  It would then be left alone to heal!

             replyreport
    2. 77

       kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Why? Do straight people stop getting married themselves because someone else did something different from what they do but has no actual effect on them what so ever? Are you trying to say that if gay people get married straight men wont be able to get it up again? Their tallywackers wont be able to wack any tally? I really don't see how 2 consenting adults getting married could have this sort of effect on straight marriage.
       
       
       
       
       Is a cat or dog a consenting adult? Um NO!!!!! So no parallel what so ever. Why is it so hard to understand what a consenting adult is? BTW, just because you like someone and want to marry them (regardless of gender) you are NOT simply allowed to marry them, they must WANT to marry you too. This is what is meant by consenting. Look it up in a dictionary, it seems you need to.
       
       
       
       At the heart of this statement is the assumption that something is wrong with homosexuality and that we must decide either to let people do wrong or 'teach' them 'what is right & what is wrong'. Of course this begs the question, who gets to decide that homosexuality is wrong? I certainly see nothing wrong with people loving each other regardless of gender. Religion is the only *cough* 'authority' that seems to say this and frankly they have no place in government.
       
       
       If we really cared for each other we would stop trying to impose our values on others. By refusing gay people the ability to marry as a straight person would we are imposing our values on others, because we think our values are better then theirs. Just as you think your values regarding the harm homosexuality cases is better then my view (that it doesn't harm anyone)
       
       
       I don't know about others but I couldn't care less what someone else who isn't a part of this conversation says, if they want to join the site fine, I just don't click links.It doesn't really mean anything to just post other peoples opinions instead of actually thinking out your own to the point of being able to post a debating opinion.
       
       Besides I don't want to provide traffic to a site that I fundamentally disagree with.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          mrnasirposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You don't have to agree with me.I just wanted to say that please do the research from every aspect on any topic,then take your decision.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             replyreport
20. 60

    SteveWaugh1965posted 12 years ago

    I adhere to the Slippery Slope argument.
    
    Once you break a basic social institution like marriage, where do you stop ?
    
    I mean here in Australia, we now have some Muslim sections of the community petitioning for Polygamy (multiple wives) to be legal. They say, that they are all consenting adults so why shouldn't it be allowed?
    
    Then what next? Marriage between brothers and sisters? Why shouldn't that be allowed as well - again, they are both consenting adults.
    
    Where does it all end?
    
    I'm all for equality. Call it whatever you like, but it is NOT marriage. "Marriage is a union of a male and female at the exclusion of all others". Call it a "union", call it a "civil union", give them full rights in all regards. But it is NOT a marriage, no matter how much you jump up and down and scream like a spoilt child.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well, congratulations, you started your statement off by saying you believe in making decisions based on flawed logic. You then went on to repeat the same mistake to justify your position. So, in one short, sweet exercise, you have shown why everything is so F-ed up in America right now. People are not only falling prey to falsehood, lies and manipulative rhetoric, they are perfectly happy to acknowledge that they have fallen prey to it and wish to continue being deceived.
       
       They say that ignorance is the end of democracy and the seedbed of tyranny. From Athens to the Constitutional Convention this has been repeated time and again. And here we are, with folks like you happily saying, "Yup, don't need me no genuine arguments. Fallacy is fine with me."
       
       Sigh.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          SteveWaugh1965posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Sigh .... I'm not American. Australian.
          
          AND - it's not a flawed logic just because you say so. No matter how much you jump up and down.
          
          Sigh.

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Lady Wordsmithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             A newer dictionary says this:
             
             marriage |ˈmarij|
             noun
             1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
             • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
             
             Definitions change, and have done throughout the ages.

             replyreport
          2. 77

             Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Dude, it's not ME saying it. Go look up logical fallacy, look up slippery slope. I didn't invent this crap. Aristotle did. He said it was important for citizens in a free society to understand the dangers of flawed arguments. People who don't learn how to recognize a failed bit of logic fall prey to trickery.
             
             I'm not saying you have to believe that gay people deserve equality. That's fine if you don't (well, it's not fine, but I can't do anything about it if that's how you feel). My point is that if you are going to argue against treating them fairly, you need to do it using logic that is not flawed.
             
             In fact, if you can make the case that we should treat gays like second-class citizens WITHOUT resorting to fallacious arguments like slippery slopes, red herrings, straw men, non sequitur, begging the question, etc., then you might even convince me and others to do it. Hell, you might even convince gay people they don't deserve to be treated like the rest of us. I am perfectly willing to see what you have to say.
             
             Go look up the main varieties of fallacy, though, seriously. Not only will it help you in this debate, it will help you in every argument you ever get in again. Plus, it's really fun if you get good at spotting them because you can see how awful most advertising is (especially political commercials. Just WOW! They insult our intelligence with that stuff. Both parties. It's shameless how stupid they think their constituency is. Or perhaps how stupid they KNOW they are. Sigh).

             replyreport
21. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    The reasons for this  attack on traditional marriage  Its the same as having children for gays !  Try two men having a child out of "Love", and yet , they have to "borrow" the womb from a woman , The gay  marriage wars are just the need to- piggyback on a traditional institution  for acceptance by a  traditional based  culture . Its all about gaining  acceptance isn't it ?

    replyreport
    1. 77

       kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Um, your traditional institutions are pretty modern things, marriage for instance for thousands of years was a tool for creating alliances between families where the children having their marriages arranged for them had no choice and were basically commodities. That is the tradition that our culture was originally built on, love, like homosexuality, destroyed (as you are so want to put it) the (supposed) cultural tradition of marriage.
       
       As for it all being about gaining acceptance, how is that a bad thing?
       Lack of acceptance has lead to violence against homosexuals so I somehow don't begrudge them the desire for acceptance.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You religious people are overly concerned with our wombs. You insist we shouldn't have the right to control it ourselves, we are murderers if we feel the need for an abortion. Now you lament the fact that we might loan it out.  At what point will our wombs be our own business?
       
       
       
       Is their anything wrong with wanting to be accepted for who you are? You want to be accepted....don't you?

       replyreport
       1. 58

          MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I wish to thank twosheds1 for pointing out Genesis 30 in the other thread.
          
          It appears that God seems to support surrogate pregnancy... bless it even.
          
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV
          
          So ladies feel free to use your wombs to carry anyone's child you wish... just as long as you get mandrake plants in return you are golden.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
          2. 57

             udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             What a frivolous interpretion and foolish application of the ancient text. Explain something to me. Is this an attempt at humor? I guess if you get a laughy   face, you (at least) appealed to your peer group.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Those who choose not to weaponize their beliefs can see the humor when it presents itself.

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   No need to respond to him hon... he's trolling.  I decided a few days ago to just ignore anything he says.

                   replyreport
                   1. 57

                      udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      When are you going to put that into action? Here, take my advice. I never use it.

                      replyreport
    3. 58

       autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Please stop saying a child not conceived between a married man and woman is born out of love. It doesn't make sense. Isn't it how the child is raised that matters? I commend all the gay married couples that adopt children that were conceived and couldn't be taken care of by the birth mother/father.

       replyreport
22. 53

    ocbillposted 12 years ago

    Most heteros and traditional couples will accept gay marriage going through but I think they will not accept a gay married couple walking down the street holding hands or kissing in high traffic areas. The level of tolerance will end there unless they are in West Hollywood, San Fran or other highly populated gay areas. They will have to pick their spots since 90% of the population isn't gay. Nobody cares what anyone does behind closed doors but in the open spaces is where it truly counts.
    No, it should not affect you but I cannot speak for everyone. Who would've thunk Colorado Batman movie? You never know about people nowadays.  Just live "your life" and be happy vs focusing on anger.

    replyreport
23. 58

    Talk N Shareposted 12 years ago

    WOW- such interesting conversation I've found here! Some of you are right on and some of you couldn't be further from the truth. The bottom line here, folks is simply that we are not to judge others, we should love everyone and not hate anyone for anything. We can hate sin, but we are not to hate the sinner. Jesus was put down for eating with sinners and showing them love and He was able to do that without sinning Himself. We need to follow His lead- oh by the way- all the rules we need to live by are in God's word. If you want to know how to live best, just get a Bible- I suggest the NIV, and enjoy.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       And all this time I've been wasting my time reading the Bhagavad Gita. Silly me! Thanks for the tip, though. You probably just saved me from marrying my dog!

       replyreport
24. 82

    kathleenkatposted 12 years ago

    I had this idea that perhaps marriage, a religious thing, should be removed completely from the government, and instead the government can grant civil unions.
    
    The problem I see is that the government has adopted a Judeo-Christian version of marriage (one man, one woman) and integrated it into our law, which is understandable because we were founded by mainly Christian groups... But, it no longer fits with our vastly diverse cultural backgrounds. There are not just homosexuals affected by this, but polygamous cultures, as well. Some Middle Eastern cultures, man can have up to four wives, and of course, all the wives are concenting adults. However, they are denied rights and coverage for them and their children, because under law, man can only marry one woman.
    
    Removing this "marriage license" in favor of the civil union would be excellent, that way people can go get married in their church, conduct whatever ritual they want (or no ritual at all), without the law having anything to say about it. Then, they can go get benefits for their family members via a civil union, and not bother anyone about being against some Judeo-Christian version of marriage.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       mrnasirposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I think most mid east countries are Islamic & I think four wives are allowed in Islam.I saw an informational & interesting video, which describes polygamy(more than 1 wife) in Islam.Take a look:
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sdzfwen-yo

       replyreport
       1. 82

          kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          "Men in Islam have been allowed to marry more than one wife because it is to protect the woman, not degrate her."
          
          I like that last thing he says. It supports that even in our differences, we all have honorable intentions.

          replyreport