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.
No, if you pulled your head out of the "god says gays can't be married sand" you'd see judges on both sides of the fence (conservative & progressive) are interpreting the Constitution the same way. For SSM. They are not taking into account opinion.
I will take God's "opinion" everyday over the governments'.
Marriage is a contract between two individuals, any two where ssm is allowed and that contract can be made for a variety of reasons. I think people that are bothered by it are repulsed by sodomy, it is a sin if they are Christian or of many other faiths and they, in their wildest nightmare, cannot understand the nature of such an attraction.
I don't care if they get their contract but to me, it will never be a true marriage meaning one man and one woman joined in holy matrimony.
Legal does not equal moral and I feel that it is being overplayed that people "accept" it. Frankly, they just don't care anymore, they aren't really a part of it so just want to stop hearing about it and/or having to think about it.
I will take God's "opinion" everyday over the governments'.
We don't live in a Theocracy. You can personally believe whatever the hell you want. It becomes an issue when you want laws based off your personal religious beliefs
I wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage, but there's something I think people are missing.
Honestly, I think a lot of the SSM stuff could have been, at the very least, delayed if the people that drated the (dying) state constitutional amendments followed the lead of Missouri, Mississippi, Nevada, and Tennessee: ban the performance of same-sex marriage, but leave civil unions, domestic partnerships, and out-of-state marriage recognition for same-sex couples open.
But instead, we got state after state that decided to ban most if not all same-sex partnerships. No marriage, no civil unions, no "domestic partnerships", no out-of-state recognition, no "cohabitation agreements". They essentially said that if you're gay, you essentially had no right to enter into a relationship with each other. Proponents of the bans hid behind the "no marriage" banner, but nobody was looking at everything else the amendments did.
That's why I don't get it when someone says, "I'm against redefining marriage, but I support civil unions for gays." Where were you in the mid-2000s when the amendments were passing left and right? To the legislators who state that they "support civil unions, but not gay marriage", where were the bills and amendments to legalize civil unions? In poll after poll in the conservative and conservative-leaning states, although support for same-sex marriage was low, support for civil unions/partnerships/recognition was well over 50% and 60%.
It is my opinion that a lot of the states brought this on themselves by going over the top with their marriage amendments, and have nobody to blame but themselves.
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.
Gay Fashion Icons Dolce & Gabbana: ‘The Only Family Is the Traditional One’
