Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those of us who are not in favor of "gay marriage" have to just sit quietly on the sidelines these days, and keep our mouths shut, because dissenting opinions are just not permitted on forums like this, and that's multiplied many times over if our opinion is based in religious teaching. So much for "open discussion."
Those who dare open their mouth and say something get called all manner of epithets and ugly names. Mean-spirited, acrimonious verbal abuse is the norm for anyone not waving a flag in favor of gay marriage.
In a supposedly enlightened society, perhaps that's the most objectionable element of all.
Not that many years ago, our courts ruled (again and again) that homosexual marriage was a violation of our laws. What changed? The constitution? No. Just public opinion.
That's what governs us today - public opinion.
You are always free to say anything you want. What you are not free from is the consequences of what you say. There's no reason for us to feel sorry that public opinion doesn't force gay people back into the closet anymore for the same reason no one would feel sorry for a white person bemoaning the fact that he can't own slaves anymore. Again, once upon a time, slavery was legal. That went away. Once upon a time women had few if any rights. That went away. Once upon a time, black people had to eat, sit, and go to the bathroom in different places than white people. That went away. Once upon a black man couldn't marry a white woman and vice versa. That went away. Why? Public opinion realized how stupid all those things were. This is just another civil rights moment.
I will play devil's advocate too:
GIve kids credit where credit is due...they don't ALL wait to age 18 and marrriage to have sex!
I know what I was doing with whom at the age of 12-13, I was welcoming the "exploration" my friends and some of the older kids and I did {NO ADULTS THOUGH}. SO kids Are NOT So "innocent" at that age!
HAd I had an adult's affection I probbly would have kept it secret too...
AND my mother would like to have believed I was still a virgin at 33, oh WAS SHE WRONG!
I went with {my mother!} once to the library at the hospital..my mother asked for books on sex at/over 50, I about died {at 33}! I said MOTHER! in a shocked tone, AS I wasn't expecting her to ask for such things I guess.
She asked why I was shocked to know my parents still enjoyed it still? I said very plainly: "Mother, I don't want to know abut your sex life anymore than you want to know about mine {at 33 and still single}"! She looked at me *shocked* and said "YOU'VE had sex?" I said, "MOTHER, I Am 33 years old, do you REALLY think I haven't had sex by now????"
And My grandmother probably turned over in her grave!
My brother had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 12. It screwed him up for life. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if the perpetrator was older ... the girl who initiated a sexual relationship with him was a predator. She used sex to control him. He bragged about it to his friends and was a willing participant at the time ... it really did a number on him though.
One of the things I appreciate about living in our republic instead of a democracy is that the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
My brother had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 12. It screwed him up for life. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if the perpetrator was older ... the girl who initiated a sexual relationship with him was a predator. She used sex to control him. He bragged about it to his friends and was a willing participant at the time ... it really did a number on him though.
I'm sure your brother had other issues.
I would have told my friend, "dude, I did your mom from behind" and I would have said "your mom likes it likes this"
One of the things I appreciate about living in our republic instead of a democracy is that the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Tell that to the religious people. Really, the fault is on all sides. The religious people vote conservative, because it is the lesser of the two evils; we don't revel in destroying the environment or taking away others' rights, but we have to choose between that and losing our own voice and rights entirely. I don't like it either. I wish we the common people whom these laws may affect directly and indirectly could come together and reason on an even plain, but the media probably has everyone convinced that would be a futile cause. Don't believe them. We are decent people who are used to being lied to by our governments and leaders, so we are wary of change.
To those who say that the state should not interfere with marriage and it is a matter of individual freedom, I invite them to think about divorce. Doesn't the State interfere with that process ? Or are the spouses left to handle their business themselves ? The State is involved in your divorce just like it is involved in your marriage, it has that power to regulate how things are going to be happening and you have very little say. Marriage is a completely separate issue from individual freedom, because individual rights are just that, individual. If you want to establish a legal bond with somebody it is not individual anymore, it is social and the State does have the absolute right to regulate the way social interaction happens. You cannot solicit the services of a prostitute despite the fact that you are two consenting adults, this will land you in jail and none of your civil rights will be violated.
The basis upon which the law is founded in this country is, like it or not, judeo-christian morals. These morals dictate that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This has nothing to do with being a theocracy, judeo-christian morals are the cornerstone of western civilization and the historic guideline for western laws and this is coming from a non-christian.
When our laws depart more and more from the set of morals which allowed our society to exist in the first place, it is not progress, it is going backwards. I understand most of the LGBT people have a hatred for all things conservative because they are at odds with society as a whole. However agreeing to spread their fallacies in the name of "tolerance" will only redefine what we are as a nation, what we are as humans. Every human being is sexual in nature, artificially redefining the ways in which this sexuality is expressed goes against the interest of humanity which is to reproduce and perpetuate our species, and prevents individuals from living a balanced life with a person of the opposite gender.
Since families are the cornerstone of society, the social, psychological and societal consequences of homosexuality are immense and obvious.
This change (homosexual marriage) is yet another step in the transformation of traditional societies and this change is not for the best. When a different set of values are replacing the traditional ones, the traditional country you knew does not exist anymore, it is being deconstructed one step at a time.
This change (homosexual marriage) is yet another step in the transformation of traditional societies and this change is not for the best. When a different set of values are replacing the traditional ones, the traditional country you knew does not exist anymore.
The basis of marriage was for stability. Has nothing to do with morals. Nothing is changing, only people who CAN get married. Frankly, I would think you & all the other naysayers would be cheering for marriage for gays to promote more stability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really, the fault is on all sides. The religious people vote conservative, because it is the lesser of the two evils; we don't revel in destroying the environment or taking away others' rights, but we have to choose between that and losing our own voice and rights entirely. I don't like it either. I wish we the common people whom these laws may affect directly and indirectly could come together and reason on an even plain, but the media probably has everyone convinced that would be a futile cause. Don't believe them. We are decent people who are used to being lied to by our governments and leaders, so we are wary of change.