This aligns with my view of the subject matter.

[Blarg]

So we're supposed to "not really care" when a law is passed that "grants rights" as long as "it has nothing to do with (our lives)".  Just shut up, keep your head down, and pay your taxes.

Would this really affect your life?  

[RallyMo]

From what I can see some folks see this as a "genetics" vs. "learned" issue. From Conervative vs. Liberal to Creation vs. Evolution, once again, the PTB widdle down a complicated issue to pushing people into taking one of two sides. I see a full fledged "learned" agenda with a possible Genetic manipulation riding shotgun, possibly inadvertant.  There is is a chance genetic manipulation at some level is happenning in the womb from consumed Exitotoxins, pesticides, hormone induced food and GMO foods to name a few sources. At the same time, Feminizing males as well as dumbing them down with Female's being masculiniized is being pushed to the forefront more than ever in film and TV. Men are being portrayed as stupid fat fools that mom and kids disrespect and if he isn't a stupid fat bumbling fool, Joe Blow is gay or at least Metrosexual. This lifestyle wouldn't sustain humanity yet we are being told to accept it? Powerful people control the entertainment industry and has made this acceptable to those sheeple that believe they themselves as sheeple are a driving force behind trends. I have found most of these people don't know the AMA, who whole heartedly backs gay marriage is privatley owned and not government. That screams agenda. I am not even against gay marraige but I don't like who is providing the propaganda. It's BS to be told to be tolerant while just within a few years it oozed through society like water filling in the sidewalk cracks.

 

There are more holes in your post than the world has plugs for.

[Mile High Dreams]

The fact that more than 50% of marriages fail today suggests that its signifigance has diminished considerably. And divorce in and of itself could be considered a sin. I agree with the OP...mind your own ****ing business. If you strive to a better human being every day everytihng else should take care of itself.

[RallyMo]

I have to ask: if a person is actually born gay (and boy it sure seems that there is a genetic basis for it, mutation or not), how in the world does it make sense to choose to deny them a right (and associated benefits) that will have absolutely no effect on the rights of others? Would it be similarly fair to deny such rights to those born of a particular sex, with blonde hair, albinism or Down Syndrome IF no harm would directly come of it to others? Furthermore, how in the world does it make sense to do so on the foundation of a belief based in chosen (not inherent) faith that a person can opt to hold or dismiss and is NOT born with?

 

...and if they aren't born gay, how are their rights and accompanying ability to have equal benefits in this respect somehow less important than those of those that choose to abide by a faith that guides them in thinking that being gay is wrong?

 

As always, I think we should strip the term "marriage" from the government vocabulary, but that's not ever going to happen.

[Mile High Dreams]

Rally...I dont think you & I agree on much..but we certainly do here.

[Spirit]

Let gay people marry. Why should they be any happier than the rest of us?

[floplag]

So the only basis for law that you would not agree with is religious?

 

Interesting.

i did not say this, please do not make assumptions about people you do not know.

the point is that any law that affects a larger group should not be based on the personal views of any one portion of the group.

we can all agree that muder is wrong, we do not all agree which god to worship, pretty simple right?

[acro2008]

There are more holes in your post than the world has plugs for.

 

Please Rally, plug my holes.  

[floplag]

You cannot seperate the word marriage from the equation, creating some seperate word to appease the religious is basically going back to the days of seperate but equal and seperate water fountains etc...

i do agree completely that this isnt a government issue, it also isnt a religious one as the right wants it to be... its s imple matter of equality, period.

 

besides, ill listen to the church talk about morality when they stop molesting children and covering it up

[RallyMo]

Please Rally, plug my holes.  

 

That's it. You're in favor of gay marriage being legalized.

[Glen]

If I hear one more old person say "Let gay people marry. Why should they be any happier than the rest of us?" I will shoot Victor's Mom in the tatas.

 

 

Do I qualify as old?

 

But yeah, I'm tired of hearing that one.  

[Blarg]

I'm ambivalent about that.

[RallyMo]

I agree with you, Eric.

[Taylor]

we can all agree that muder is wrong, we do not all agree which god to worship, pretty simple right?

Not true. There are plenty of cultures and subcultures who do not believe murder is wrong. Murder is a way of life for gang members.

[Taylor]

besides, ill listen to the church talk about morality when they stop molesting children and covering it up

 

I'll listen to Muslims when they stop blowing up buildings.

 

Which statement is more judgmental?

[arch stanton]

I'm not a lawyer but I never allow that fact to dissuade me from pitching in my 2 cents. I see two options here.

 

option 1- Marriage is legally defined as being between one man and one woman thus a clear violation of equal protection thereby nullifying all uses of marriage in legal findings and documents. Everyone, gay or straight,  go get a lawyer and register your civil union at the local courthouse.

 

option 2- Marriage is legally defined as being between any two consenting adults and we prepare for the bigamists to come out of their hiding places and create the next big argument.

 

Personally I would define marriage as a religious ceremony with no bearing on law and require all couples, or any group of consenting adults, to draw up a cohabitation contract and have it registered at the courthouse. It could be for any duration or have any enforceable stipulations but the care and handling of children would need to be clearly defined.

[Adam]

Not true. There are plenty of cultures and subcultures who do not believe murder is wrong. Murder is a way of life for gang members.

 

Exactamundo

[2002_halos_II]

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

 

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

[arch stanton]

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

 

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

ok

[Futch Winkleman]

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

 

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

 

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!!!!!

[mtangelsfan]

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!!!!!

 

RESPONDING TO A STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!

[Glen]

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

 

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

 

 

If you want to I don't see why not, it has no effect on me.  But yeah, like Futch said, slippery slope.  Why can't we just consider one thing at a time?  Why does it have to slide right down to the more extreme examples?

[Angelsjunky]

Because marriage is between one man and one woman.  

 

Like David and Michal and Ahinoam and Abigail and Maacath and Haggith and Abital and Eglah and Bathsheba and others.

 

But not Adam and Steve.

 

I hope this is satire. If not, here's one for you: Why should American law reflect Christian belief? And not even all Christian belief, but fundamentalist literalist belief? Do you disagree with the founding fathers on freedom of religion?

 

 

[Futch Winkleman]

Yes, it was satire.

[Angelsjunky]

I should have known based upon your picture there.